





George Washington Flowers 
Memorial Collection 


DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 


ESTABLISHED BY THE 
FAMILY OF 
COLONEL FLOWERS 











Maryland Pamphlets 
1840-1859 
1-14 


Report on the Acts of the Assembly 
Indepentent Order of Odd-Fellows /”% 
Report on the Gourts of Chancery - 
Report on the M'Donogh Bequest | 
Report by the Agents of Baltimore 
Report and Documents 5 
Statement of Francis Thomas” 
Gowen, Address at Calvert Eaisese 
Streeter, Maryland , 200 Years ago 
- Constitution of the Maryland Institute ‘- 
11. The Laity of Maryland »°- 
12, Johns, Correspondence ¥2v 
13, Stewart, Organization of the House: 
14, Letters and Speeches 4 (/ 


HPODONOMNPANE 


Oee eee ee © @© @ 





avutlitari 


eayck 


—_ 


* eee oY 
™= . .* oq 


‘ 
i 
& 
— 


aionearwsood Pun 
Py) ue ae 

ena Hk 
san beieM 
iyea¥ a to. AOLING 
ca fyted 13 
shrnocraswvitoo 
‘tas finan 





§ 
‘(ye palate. 
\ 
_ 
a | 





_ BY THE COMMISSIONERS , 


Ss APPOIN'TED TO CODIFY THE LAWS Of THE STATE. 
weer? ; | 






=a. 0 


; " c 
" ie 


JOHN COX. 


nie 


ae 
+ 





am THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 
ya Ls Wee 
Tas 
| &, 2 4 
Ys ; 
A, 
A BRBTICLE fPgoD e- 


LAW OF APPEALS. 





APPEALS FROM COURTS OF LAW. 


Src. 1. From any judgment or determination of any court of 
law in any civil suit or action, or in any prosecution for the re- 
covery of any penalty, fine, or damages, any party may appeal 
to the Court of Appeals. 


2. Hither party to a petition for freedom may appeal. 


3. In cases of issues sent from the Orphan’s Court, or a Court 
of Hquity, to a Court of law to be tried, exceptions may be taken 
to any opinion given by the court before whom such issues shall 
be tried, and an appeal. taken on such exceptions. And such 
appeal, while pending, shall stay all proceedings in the Or- 
phan’s Court touching the matter of such issues. 


4, Any person interested, may appeal from the decision of the 
court on any question arising under the insolvent law; Pro- 
vided, such appeal be taken in thirty days, and bond be given to 
prosecute with effect, or pay costs and damages. 


5. No writ of error shall be sued out, or appeal taken from 
any judgment or determination of a court of law, after the ex- 
piration of three years from the date of such judgment or deter- 
mination, except writs of error, coram vobis, where judgments 
have been entered by mistake. 


6. Upon any appeal being taken in a court of law, or any writ 


of error sued out, the clerk shall make out and transmit to the 
Court of Appeals a full transcript of the record of Dr a 


7 * 


> $56554 


4 


under the seal of the court, within nine months after the appeal 
has been entered or writ of error produced ; and upon the re- 
ceipt of such transcript, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals shall 
enter the case upon his docket, as of the term next after the 
date of the appeal, or of the writ of error, 


7. No appeal shall be dismissed because a copy of the record 
shall not have been transmitted within the time required by 
law, if it shall appear to the Court of Appeals that such delay 
was occasioned by the neglect or omission of the clerk. 


8. If any appeal shall be dismissed because of the failure of 
the clerk to send up a transcript of the record within time, such 
dismissal shall not prevent a subsequent appeal ; Provided, such 
subsequent appeal be taken within the time limited by law for 
appealing from such judgment. 


9. All appeals and writs of error shall regularly stand for 
hearing at the term of the Court of Appeals next succeeding 
the term to which said appeal shall have been taken, or writ of 
error shall have been prosecuted. 


10. All appeals upon petitions for freedom, in cases of manda- 
mus, or questions arising under the insolvent laws, on excep- 
tions taken on the trial of issues sent from the Orphan’s Courts 
or Courts of Equity, orders granting injunction or refusing to 
dissolve the same, or appointing a receiver, and all BY god from 
decisions of the Orphan’ s Courts, and from any judgment on 
motions to set aside sales, or apply money in the hands of the 
sheriff, shall stand for hearing at the first term after the trans- 
mission of the record. 


11. All cases where the State is interested, shall stand for 
hearing at the first term after the transmission of the record. 


12. The Court of Appeals shall, in no case, decide any point 
or question which does not appear by the record to have been 
raised or made in, and decided by the court below. 


13. The court, from whose judgment or order under the in- 
solvent laws an appeal shall be taken, shall immediately upon 
the entry of such appeal, certify and state the questions raised 
in and decided by such court ; and no question, which shall not 
appear by such certificate to have been raised in said court, shall 
be considered by the Court of Appeals. 


5 


14. The Court of Appeals shall have, on reversing any judg- 
ment or part of a judgment at law, power to give such judg- 
ment as ought to have been given by the court below, and may, 
_ in all cases, enforce their judgment by execution. 


15. If an appeal shall be taken, or writ of error sued out for 
several exceptions, the Court of Appeals shall give judgment 
on every exception, if a procedendo is to be issued in the case. 


16. In all cases where judgments shall be reversed or affirmed 
by the Court of Appeals, andit shall appear to the court that a 
new trial ought to be had, a writ of procedendo shall issue to 
the court from which the appeal was taken, commanding said 
court to try said cause again as if it never had been tried: and 
there shall be sent with the procedendo a transcript of the re- 
cord, and the said case shall stand for trial at the first term 
after the receipt of the procedendo ; Provided, thirty days notice 
of trial be given to the opposite party. 


_ 17. When, on the reversal of a judgment, a writ of proce- 
dendo shall be awarded, the Court of Appeals, upon suggestion 
in writing by either of the parties, supported by affidavits or 
other proper evidence, that a fair and impartial trial cannot be 
had in the court where the judgment so reversed shall have been 
rendered, shall direct their clerk to transmit a copy of the re- 
cord to the Clerk of the Court of some other county or city, with 
a writ of procedendo to such court, directing them to proceed in 
such action, and to a new trial thereof, in the same manner as if 
no trial had taken place, and as if such action had been origi- 
nally instituted in such court. 


18. If an appeal or writ of error be dismissed when taken 
on any order of the court antecedent to final judgment, and no 
final judgment shall have been rendered, it shall be the duty of 
the said court, on applicatian of any of the parties, to order con- 
tinuances in said case to be entered, and the same to be pro- 
ceeded with in the same manner and with the same effect as if 
no such appeal or writ of error had been taken or sued out, and 
either party may make such suggestion and new parties as could 
have been made if no appeal had been taken in the case; Pro- 
vided, the court shall be satisfied by the certificate of the Clerk 
of the Court of Appeals, or other proper evidence, that the said 
appeal or writ of error has been dismissed. 


2 


356504 


6 









19. Where writs of error coram vobis are pending in - 
Court of Appeals, and it shall appear to the court necessary 
try any matter of fact put in issue by the pleadings in the ¢ ca 
the court may direct a transcript of the record to the court ~ 
where the defendant named in the original action may reside, or — 
to such other court as the parties in the said cause may agree 
upon, and the court to which such transcript shall be transmit- 
ted, shall proceed in such action, and to a trial of the facts put 


in issue. 


APPEALS FROM COURTS OF EQUITY. 


20. An appeal shall be allowed from any final decree or order 
in the nature of a final decree, passed by a Court of Equity; 
Provided, such appeal be taken within nine months from the 
time of making such decree or order, and not afterwards, unless 
it shall be alleged on oath that such order was obtained by fraud 
or mistake. 


21. An appeal may also be allowed in the following cases, to- 
wit: From any order granting an injunction, or from a refusal 
to dissolve the same; or an order appointing a receiver, the an- 
swer of the party appealing being first filed in the cause; from 
an order dissolving an injunction; from an order for the sale, 
conveyance, or delivery of real or personal property, or the pay- 
ment of money, unless such delivery or payment be directed to 
be made to a receiver appointed by such court; or from an order 
determining a question of right between the parties, and di- 
recting an account to be stated on the principle of such determi- 
nation. 


22. On an appeal from a final decree or order, all previous 
orders which may have passed in the cause shall be open for 
revision in the Court of Appeals, unless an appeal under the 
next preceding section may have puviguey been taken to such 
order. 


23. No appeal from any order shall stay the execution or sus- 
pend the operation of such order, unless the party praying the 
appeal shall give bond, with security, to indemnify the other 
party from all loss and injury which said party may sustain by 
reason of such appeal, and the staying the operation of such 
order ; such bond to be approved by the Judge or Clerk of the 


7 


Court where the proceedings are pending ; and upon giving such 
bond, the appeal shall stay the operation of all such orders, in 
the same manner as appeals do from final decrees. 


24. In case a party intends, on an appeal from the final de- 
cree or order in the case, to dispute any previous order, and de- 
sires to stay the operation of such order, he shall state his inten- 
tion to dispute the same, in writing, to be filed with the clerk, 
and shall give bond in such penalty as the court may prescribe, 
with security to be approved by,the court or the clerk, to indem- 
nify the other party from all loss and injury which such party 
may sustain by reason of the staying the operation of such 
order. , 


25. Whenever a Judge of a Court of Equity shall refuse an 
application for an injunction, he shall certify the same at the 
foot of the bill: and any person feeling himself aggrieved by 
such refusal, may present an attested copy of the bill, with the 
order refusing such injunction, to the Judges of the Court of 
Appeals, or any one of them, who shall have authority to direct 
the injunction to be awarded ; and on such injunction the same 
proceedings shall be had as if the injunction had been awarded 
by the Court of Equity. 


26. On an appeal from a Court of Equity, no objection to the 
competency of witnesses, or the admissibility of evidence, or to 
the sufficiency of the averments of the bill or petition, shall be 
made in the Court of Appeals, unless it appear by the record 
that such objection had been made by exceptions filed in the 
Court of Equity. ' 


28. No defendant to a suit in equity, in which an appeal may 
be taken, shall make any objections to the jurisdiction of the 
court below, unless it shall appear by the record that such ob- 
jection was made in said court. 


29. If it shall appear or be shewn to the Court of Appeals 
that the substantial merits of, a cause will not be determined by 
the reversing or affirming of any decree or order that may have 
been passed by a Court ot Equity, or that the purposes of jus- 
tice will be advanced by permitting further proceedings in the 
cause, either through amendment of any of the pleadings, or 
the introduction of further evidence or otherwise, then the Court 
of Appeals, instead of passing a final decree or order, shall or- 
der the cause to be remanded to the court from whose decision 


8 


shall there be had by amendment of pleadings, or further t 








the appeal was taken, and thereupon such further proceedings 


mony to be taken or otherwise, as shajl be necessary for d 
mining the cause upon its merits, as if no appeal had been take 
in the cause, and the decree or order appealed from had not been 
passed, save only that the order or decree passed by the Court of 
Appeals shall be conclusive as to the points finally decided 
thereby. And it shall be the duty of the Court of Appeals, in 
its order remanding the cause, to express the reasons for the re~ 
manding, and also to determine and declare the opinion of the 
court on all points which may have been made before the said 
court, or which may be presented by the record. 


30. No execution upon any judgment or decree in any court of 
law or equity, shall be stayed or delayed, unless the person against 
whom such judgment or decree shal} be rendered or passed, his 
heirs executors or administrators, or some other person in his or 
their behalf, shall immediately, upon praying an appeal from any 
such judgment or decree, or suing out a writ of error upon any 
such judgment, enter into bond with sufficient securities in at least 
double the sum recovered by such judgment or decree, or in double 
the value of the matter or thing in controversy, which shall have 
been recovered or decreed, if a moveable chattel or chattels, to 
be estimated by the court, from whose judgment or decree the 
said appeal shall be made or writ of error directed, with condi- 
tion as follows or to the following effect: That if the said party 
appellant, or party suing out such writ of error, shall not cause a 
transcript of the record and proceedings of the said jugdment or 
decree to be transmitted to the Court of Appeals within the time 
required by law, and prosecute the said appeal or writ of error 
with effect, and also satisfy and pay to the said party in whose 
favor such judgment or decree was rendered or passed, his execu~ 
tors, administrators or assigns, in case the said judgment or decree 
shall be affirmed, as well the debt, damages and costs, or the 
damages or,sum of money or other matter or thing, and costs 
adjudged in the court from which the appeal is taken, or writ of 
error sued out, as also all damages and costs that may be award- 
ed by the Court of Appeals ; then the said bond to be and remain 
in full force and virtue, otherwise of no effect. 


31. The clerk or judge of any court of law or equity shall ap- 
prove any bond under the preceding section. 


32. The filing of am appeal bond approved as aforesaid, shall 
stay any execution which has been issued on any such judgment 


9 


or decree, whether the same has been in part executed or not ; 
and the sheriff or other officer in whose hands the execution may 
be, shall, upon the exhibition to him of satisfactory evidence that 
an appeal bond has been filed and approved, and upon the receipt 
of the costs which have accrued in said execution, stay all further 
proceedings, and deliver up the property ; Provided, that this 
section shall not extend to appeals from courts of common law ren- 
dered by confession, or to any judgment rendered on verdict, un- 
less a bill of exceptions has been taken, or a motion in arrest of 
judgment has been over ruled. 


33. The courts of law and equity and the judges thereof, in va- 
cation, shall have full power and authority to examine into and 
determine on the sufficiency of the sureties to any bond filed in 
the offices of the said courts respectively under this article, and 
the said courts may from time to time make such rules and or- 
ders for the justifying or proving the sufficiency of such sureties, 
and for requiring additional security in any case, as they may 
deem proper. ‘ 


34. In case any such bond shall be rejected, the court or judge 
rejecting thes ame shall have a discretionary power to grant 
further time to the party to fileanother bond; and if wpon such 
indulgence the party shall file a new bond, which shall be ap- 
proved, the supersedeas thereupon granted shall have a relation | 
back to the day of the filing the first bond. 


35. No bond required by this article to be executed for the 
purpose of staying or delaying execution upon any judgment or 
decree, which shall be approved, shall be avoided for any matter 
of form. | 


36. Any judgment confessed before two justices of the peace 
for staying execution, on any judgment or decree in any Circuit 
Court, or the Supreior Court, or Court of Common Pleas of the 
city of Baltimore, may be appealed from, or a writ of error thereon 
may be brought in like manner, and there shall be the same pro- 
ceedings to stay execution thereon, as herein prescribed in rela- 
tion to judgments rendered in courts of law; and the bond en- 
tered into on making the appeal or suing out the writ of error, 
and the sureties therein, shall be approved by the clerk of the 
court in which the judgment or decree was rendered. 


© 


10 







APPEALS FROM ORPHAN’S COURTS, 
. ial hs 

37. In all decrees, orders, decisions and judgments made by 
any Orphan’s Court, the party who may deem himself aggriev- 
ed by such decree, order, decision or judgment, may ovr 
the Court of Appeals; Provided, such appeal be made within 


thirty days after such decree, order, decision or judgment. 


38. If the decree, order, decision or judgment shall have been 
given or made on a summary proceeding, and on the testimony 


of witnesses, the party shall not be allowed to appeal, unless he 


shall immediately notify his intention and request that the tes- 
timony be reduced to writing, and in such case the depositions 
shall be at the cost of the party in the first instance reduced to 
writing. ¥ 


39. The register shall make out, and transmit to the Court of 
Appeals, a full transcript or record of the whole proceedings of 
the court in such case, under the hand of the register and the 
seal of the court, within sixty days after the appeal, or to the next 
Court of Appeals after said appeal is entered, and upon the re- 
ceipt of such transcript by the clerk of the Court of Appeals, he 
shall enter the case upon his docket as of the term next after the 
date of said appeal. 


40, The Court of Appeals shall either affirm the decree, judg- 
ment, decision or order of the court below, or direct in what man- 
ner it shall be changed or amended, and the decision of the Court 
of Appeals shall be final and conclusive, and when certified under 
the seal of the court, and transmitted to the Orphan’s Court, the 
Orphan’s Court shall proceed according to the tenor and direc- 
tions thereof. 


41, An appeal from the Orphan’s Court shal] not stay any pro- 
ceedings therein, which may with propriety be carried on before 
the appeal is decided; Provided, the said Orphan’s Court can 
provide for the conforming to the decision of the Court of Ap- 
peals, whether the said decision may eventually be for or against 
the appellant. é 


42. If upon an appeal being entered in the Orphan’s Court 
the parties shall mutually agree, and enter their assent in writing 
to be filed by the Register of Wills, that the appeal shall be 
made to the Circuit Court for the county, or Superior Court for 


1] 


Baltimore, the Orphan’s Court shall direct the transcript of the 
proceedings to be transmitted to the Circuit Court, or Superior 
Court for Baltimore, whose decision shall be final. 

43. It shall be the duty of the clerk or register transmitting a 
record to the Court of Appeals, to mark upon the record the 
amount of the costs taxed against the plaintiff and defendant 
respectively, to the time of the appeal. 


44. When any instrument of writing has been once transcrib- 
ed into any record intended to be transmitted to the Court of Ap- 
peals, #shall not be necessary to copy such instrument a second 
time in such record, but it shall be sufficient to refer to the same 
and the page of its first ititroduction into the record generally ; 
and if copied a second time, the parties concerned in the cause 
shall not be charged for the second copy. 


APPEALS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE. 


45. All parties aggrieved by any judgment, final order or de- 
termination in any case affecting the title to lands made by the 
Commissioner of the Land Office, shall have full.power and right 
to appeal from such judgment, order or determination to the Court 
of Appeals; Provided, that such appeal shall be made within 
nine months from the date of such judgment, order or determi- 
nation, the party appealing, filing at the time of such appeal, 
his reasons therefor ; And provided further, that no such appeal 
shall stay proceedings, unless bond and security be given in the 
manner herein required in appeals from Courts of Equity. 





APPBALS FROM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 


46. All appeals made from any decision or order of the County 
Commissioners, shall be made to the Circuit Court. 





APPEALS FROM JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. 


47. Any party aggrieved thereby may appeal from any judg- 
ment of a justice of the peace to the Circuit Court for the county, 
or “ Court of Common Pleas” in Baltimore, at any time within 
sixty days from the rendition of such judgment. 


« 





12 


48. If either party die after the rendition of a judgment by a 
justice of the peace, his executor or administrator may app 
within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment. 





49. On the party signifying his intention to appeal, it sell 
be the duty of the justice of the peace to enter the appeal, with 
the date thereof, upon his docket, and to transmit the papers in 
the cause to the clerk of the Circuit Court, or the clerk of the 
Court of Common Pleas. 


50. All appeals shall be docketed, and summons fomghe ap- 
pellee issued by the clerk of the Cireuit Court, or Court 6 Com- 
mon Pleas, immediately upon the filing the papers in his office, 
and no petition shall be necessary in any case. 


51. If the summons shall be returned summoned, and the pa- 
pers shall have been filed ten days previous to the commence- 
ment of the then next term of the court, the case shall stand for 
trial at the first term ; but if the papers are not filed within that 
time, the case shall not stand for trial until the next term: 


52. No appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace shall 
stay execution unless an appeal bond, with approved and sufficient 
ssecurity, be filed with the justice, with condition that if the party 
appealing shall not prosecute his a ppeal at the next Cirenit Court 
for the county, or the next term of the Court of Common Pleas 
with effect, and also pay and satisfy the party in whose behalf 
the judgment of the justice shall be given, his executors, admin- 
istrators or assigns, in case the said judgment shall be affirmed, 
as well the debt, damage and cost, adjudged by the justice from 
whose judgment such appeal shall be made, as also all costs and 
damages that shall be awarded by the court before whom such 
appeal shall be heard, tried, and determined, then the said bond 
to be and remain in full force and virtue, otherwise to be of none 
effect. 


53. When an appeal bond shall be filed with sufficient secu- 
rities, the said appeal shall operate as a supersedeas to any ex- 
ecution on said judgment, notwithstanding a levy may have been 
made; Provided, the said appeal shall be taken and the bond 
filed within sixty days after judgment, and the party, appellant 
first pays or tenders payment to the officer making such levy, all 
legal fees which shall have accrued on said levy. 


ato tree 


13 


54. If the justice of the peace rendering any judgment appeal- 
ed from, goes out of office by death or otherwise, before an ap- 
peal bond has been executed by the party appealing, such appeal 
bond may be executed before any other justice in the same county 
or city, and such bond shall have the same effect as if executed 
before the justice rendering the judgment appealed from. 








AMIS? OR ACTS 


CONTAINED IN 


Pt Cl, APPEALS. 


1785, ch. 72. 1829, ch. 236. 1842, ch. 27. 
1785, ch. 87. 1831, ch. 68. 1842, ch. 28. 
1791, eh. 68. 1826, ch. 200. 1843, ch. 41. 
1796, chg 67. 1830, ch. 185. 1843, ch. 73. 
1798, ch. 101, sub. ch. 2, and 1832, ch. 197. 1843, ch. 73. 

sub. ch. 15. 1832, ch. 208. 1845, ch. 7. 
1800, ch. 69. - 1832, ch. 302. 1845, ch. 91. 
1802, ch. 1. 1834, ch. 105. 1845, ch. 132. 
1806, ch. 90. 1834, ch. 248. 1845, ch. 367. 
1807, ch. 151. 1834, ch. 296. 1849, ch, 88. 
1811, ch. 171. 1835, ch. 346, 380. 1849, ch. 453. 
1813, ch. 62. 1836, ch. 305. 1849, ch. 78. 
1814, ch. 94. 1837, ch. 217. 1849, ch. 517. 
1818, ch. 88. 1840, ch. 232. 1852, ch. 155. 
1818, ch. 193, 1841, ch. 11. 1852, ch. 239. 
1818, ch. 204. 1841, ch. 46. 1853, ch. 374. 
1825, ch. 68. 1841, ch. 263. 1853, ch. 416. 
1825, ch. 117. 














—Tndependent Order of Odd-Fellows, 


LAR RAARRARAR RAR AAAS 


4 


FRIENDSHIP, LOVE AND TRUTH. 


a ee 


ANNUAL COMMUNICATION 


GRAND LODGE OF THE UNITED STATES, 


Held at the City of Baltimore, September, 1849.. 


RRA ARR AAA ARR AAA AA ARR nen 


Monpay, September 17, 9 o’clock, A. M. 
The R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States convened this day 
‘at Odd-Fellows’ Hall, City of Baltimore, being the regular Annual 
Communication, when the following were present: 


HORN R. KNEASS, - - - - M.W.G. Sire. 
NEWELL A. THOMPSON, - R. W.D. G. Sire. 
JAMES L. RIDGELY, - - ~- R.W.G.C.and R. Secretary. 
ANDREW E. WARNER, - - R. W.G. Treasurer. 

Rev. Bro. E. M. P. WELLS, °- R. W. G. Chaplain, p. t. 
SMITH SKINNER, - - - - R.W.G. Marshal. 

JOHN E. CHAMBERLAIN, -_ - W. G. Messenger. 
SAMUEL L. HARRIS, - - - W. G. Guardian. 


The Grand Secretary proceeded to call the roll, when the follow- 
ing members responded, viz: 

Reps. Allen, of Pa.; Anderson, of Ga.; Ballou, of Vt.; Burr, 
of N. C.; Cole, of Mass.; Dibblee, of N. York; Davies, of N. Y.,; 
Dickson, of Del.; Fritz, of Pa.; Green, of Ohio; Knight, of R.I.; ° 
Marley, of Md.; Moffet, of Missouri; Mott, of La.; Parmenter, of 
Mass.; Parker, of N. H.; Sessford, of D. C.; Silsby, of Ala.; Smith, 
of Maine; Theobald, of Maine; Treadway, Mich.; Wakefield, N. 
J.; Zimmerman, Md.; P. G, Sires Wildey, Kennedy. 

The Grand Secretary, haying reported a quorum present, the De- 
puty Grand Sire examined the representatives, and reported them 

1 Wi : 


ae 


9 
~ 


duly qualified; whereupon, by order of the M. W. Grand Sire, hé 

proclaimed the Grand Lodge open for the transaction of business. 
Prayer by Rev. Bro. E. ‘M. P. Wells, R. W. G. Chaplain, p. ¢. 
The chair named the following as the Committee on Credentials: 

LA a Parmenter, of Mass.; Sessford, of D. of C.; Zimmerman, of 


“Rep. Parmenter, of Mass., presented the Credentials of Rep. Elli- 
son, of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. 

Rep. Cole, of Mass., presented the Credentials of Rep. Frost, of 
the Grand Camp, of Mass. 

Rep. Wakefield, of N. J., presented the Credentials of Rep. Read, 
of the Grand Lodge of N. J. 

Rep. Treadway, of Mich., presented the Credentials of Rep. Fol- 
let, of Grand Lodge of Michigan. 

Rep. Mott, of La., presented the Credentials of Rep. Strawbridge, 
of Grand Lodge of La. 

Rep. Fritz, “of Pa. presented the Credentials, of Rep. Wells, of the 
Grand Lodge of Pa.. 

Rep. Allen, of Pa., presented the Credentials of Rep. Rtakes,, of 
the Grand Camp of Pa. 

Rep. Davies of N. Y., presented the Credentials of Rep. Hale, of 
the Grand Lodge of New York. 

Rep. Dibblee, of N. Y., presented the Credentials of Rep. Taylor, 
of the Grand Camp of New York. 

Rep. Anderson, of Ga., presented the Credentials of Rep. Cohen, 
of the Grand Lodge of Georgia. 

Rep. Green, of Ohio, presented the Credentials of Rep. Olds, of 
the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and also the Credentials of Rep’s Clark 
and Spooner, of Grand Camp of Ohio. 

Rep. Burr, of N. C., presented the credentials of Rep. Manly, of 
the G. Lodge of N.C. 

Rep. Moffett, of Mo., presented the credentials of Rep. Forbes, of 
the G. L. of Mo.; also, of Rep. Crane, of the G. Camp of Mo., of Rep. 
Barrows, of Grand Lodge of Miss., of Rep. Brown, of G. Lodge of 
Indiana. 

Rep. Treadway, of Mich., presented the credentials of Aia.. 
Thomas and Lockwood, of G. L. of Conn., and Rep. Sanford, of G. 
Camp of Conn. 

Rep. Parker, of N. H., presented the credentials of Rep. Brown, of 
G. L. of N. H.; also of Rep. Currier, of G. Camp of N. H.; also of 
Reps. Wakeley and McDonald, of G. L. of Wisconsin. 

Rep. Silsby, of Ala., presented the credentials of Rep. Shaw, of G. 
L. of Ala. 

Rep. Knight, of R. I., presented the credentials of Rep, Webster, « of 
G. Camp of R. 1.; also of Rep. Marshall of Grand Lodge of Ky. 

Rep. Dickson, oF Del., presented the credentials of Rep. Smith, of 
» G. L. of Del.; also of Rep, Askew, of G. Camp of Del. 

Rep. Sessford, of Dis. of Col., presented the credentials of Re e- 
Moore, of G. L. ‘of D. of C., of Rep. Towers, of the G. Camp of 





LUNN UE er 


he, Po APleee Sani Bei . 


3 


of C.; also the memorial of P. G. M, E. C. Robinson, of Va., contest- 
ing the seatof the Rep. elect from the G. Camp of Virginia, Ps Cy Pi 
Brunet, and claiming to be the rightful Rep. of the said G. Encamp- 
ment. 

Rep. Zimmerman, of Md., presented the credentials of Rep. 
Tewksbury of G. C. of Md., and of Rep. Hunt, of the G. L. of Md. 

Rep. Smith, of Maine, presented the credentials of Rep. Haines, 
of the G. L. of Maine. 

Rep. Torre, of S. C., presented the ceesdens thle of Rep. DeSaus- 
sure, of G. L. of S. Ci: also of Rep. Colfax, of Grand Camp of In- 
diana. 

Rep. Parmenter, of Mass., presented the credentials of Rep. Phil- 
lips, of the Grand Lodge of Va., also of Rep. Brunet, of the Grand 
Camp of Va. > 

P. G. Sire Kennedy, presented the credentials of Rep. Potts, 
of the G. L. of Tlinois, of Reps. Peacock and Wilson, of the G: ie 
of Tenn., of Rep. Morton, of G. Camp of Tenn., of Rep. Hastings, of 
G. Camp of Miss., and of Rep. Garritt, of the GL. Arkansas. 

The G.Sec’y. presented the credentials of P. G. M. Montgomerie, 
special Rep. from the Grand Lodge of British North America, 

All of which were referred to the Committee on credentials. 

On motion of Rep. Treadway, of Mich., P. G. M. Kelloge, of Mich., 
Deputy Grand Sire elect, was invited to a seat within the Hall. 

Rep. Parmenter, of Mass., from the Committee on Credentials, 
vabinitted the following report: y, 


To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States: 


The Committee on Credentials Teport the certificates of election of 
the following Representatives as in due form and properly authenti- 
cated: 


P. G. JOHN W. HUNT, Rep. of G. L. of Maryland. 
P. G. M. WM. ELLISON, of Massachusetts. 
P. G. JAMES W. HALE, i “ “of New York. 
P.G. WILLIAM A. WELLS, m “Pennsylvania. 
P. G.M. EDSON B. OLDS, ° ds ‘of Ohio. 
P. G. JAMES STRAWBRIDGE, bs ‘* Louisiana. 
P. G.M. BENJAMIN FOLLETT,  « ‘Michigan. 
P. G. JOHN H. MANLY, i ss Sai Carolina. 
Pp. G. M. SAMUEL READ, “ New Jersey. 
P. G. M. D. N. BARROWS, x “Mississippi. 
P. G. GEORGE BROWN, My ‘ Indiana. 
P. G. LUCIUS A. THOMAS, _ 
P. G. S. LOCKWOOD, Jr., vice ie i Gbihaotidli. 
J.T. Minor, resigned, J 
P. G. STEPHEN BROWN, ed te NY Hampshire: 
P. G. GEORGE W. WILSON, a ey 
P. G. JAMES, PEACOCK, vice vat ‘“«-- Tennessee. 
G. P. Smith, resigned. J 
Me G SOLOMON COHEN, af ‘Georgia. 


4 
P, G. E. WAKELEY, a 
P. G. DAVID McDONALD, é ‘Wisconsin. 
to fill vacancy, J 1 
P. G. M. ROBERT O. SHAW, is ‘© Alabama. 
P. G. M. JOHN G. POTTS, 4 ‘« J)linois. 
P.G. M. W. W. MOORE, i « ~T). of Columbia. 
P. G. M. JOHN F. SMITH, ‘i “ Delaware. 
P. G. ALEX. K. MARSHALL, ay “ Kentucky. 
P. D. G. M. ISAIAH FORBES, a “Missouri. 
P. G. M. ALLEN HAINES, s « Maine. 
G. M. W.G. DeSAUSSURE, & ‘South Carolina. 
P.G. M. W. F. PHILLIPS, a ‘“« Virginia. 
G. mice FRED. 8S. GARRITT, 4 ““ Arkansas, 
P. C. P. GEO. D. TEWKSBURY, Rep. of G. Encampment of Md. 
P. H. P. JOS. B. FROST, “Massachusetts. 
P. G. M. JOHN W. STOKES, 24 ‘““~ Pennsylvania. 
P. G. P. JOSEPH R. TAYLOR, s ““ New York. 
P. G. M. JOHN T. TOWERS, “ ‘© D. of Columbia. 
P. G. WM. E. SANDFORD, - “Connecticut. 
PC. P. H. NELSON CLARK, ts e 
P. G. M. THOMAS SPOONER, $+* ‘© Ohio. 
vice John Brough, resigned, 
. M. H. F. ASKEW, + “Delaware. 
. Sec. T. ELIJAH MORTON “ “ Tennessee. 
JOHN G. HASTINGS, s ‘« Mississippi. 


one 

. P. HENRY L. WEBSTER, 
. P. AMOS B. CURRIER, 
. P, BENJ. F. CRANE, 
Ps 

a ig 


idiots oS 
mEAIIAR: 


ar 


Rhode Island. 
N. Hampshire, 


pe “Missouri. 
H. PORTER ANDREWS, & «Louisiana. 
S. COLFAX, ms «*  Jndiana. 


he Committee have the satisfaction of reporting the credentials 


of P. G. M. Huen Epmonstone Montcomenris, as Special Grand 
Representative from the R, W. G. Lodge of British. North America, as 
duly authenticated by the signatures of the officers, and the seal of 
that R. W. Body. 

The Committee also report, as correct, the certificate of P. G, 
James M. H, Brunet, as Grand Representative from the Grand En- 
campment of Virginia. They have, in their possession, a memorial 
from P. G, M. BE. C. Robinson, claiming the seat on the ground of a 
miscounting of ballots at the election. No evidence has been pre- 
sented to ihe Committee, beyond the certificate; but the memo- 
alist sets forth certain facts, and his readiness. to verify them, 
which, as he claims, controls the certificate as evidence of the 
election of the Brother presenting it. The Committee return 
the memorial to the Grand Lodge for such further pore as may be 
expedient. Respectfully submitted, 
WM. E. PARMENTER, 
JNO. SESSFORD, Jr.,. 
8. F. ZIMMERMAN. 





5 


‘Rep. Ellison, of Mass., asked for a division of the question, pre- 
sented by the report, when on his motion, so much thereof as re- 
lated to the uncontested seats in the Grand Lodge, was adopted; the 
question being then on the residue of the report, 
Rep. Cole, of Mass., moved to refer it again to the Committee on 
Credentials. . 

Rep. Ellison, of Mass., moved to amend the motion of Rep. Cole, 
by referring the subject under consideration, to a Special Committee. 

The chair ruled the motion out of order, upon the ground, that a 
motion to refer could not, under the Rules of Order, be amended. 

Rep. Marshall, of Ky. moved to amend, by admitting Rep. Brunet, 
of the Grand Encampment of Virginia, to his seat, and referring 
back the memorial of Rep. Robinson, to the Committee on Cre- 
dentials, 

The chair ruled the amendment to be out of order. 

Rep. Cole, of Mass., asked and obtained leave to withdraw the 
motion to refer back the second branch of the report of the com- 
mittee. 

Whereupon, on motion of Rep. Sessford, of the D. of C., the re- 
mainder of the report of the Committee on Credentials was adopted, 
and Rep. Brunet, of the G. E. of Va., was admitted to his seat. 

On motion of Rep. Ellison, of Mass., the memorial of P. G. M. 
E..C. Robinson, of Va., was referred to a special committee. The 
chair named Reps. Moore, of D. of C., Burr, of N. C , and Spooner, 
of Ohio, as the committee. 

On motion of Rep. Allen, of Pa., the following resolution was 
adopted: 

Resolved, That P. G. Secretary W. Curtis and Peter Weikel be pertnitted to 
visit during the session of the Grand Lodge. 

On motion of Rep. Davies, of N. Y., the following resolution was 
adopted: 

Resolved, That a special committee of three be appointed to report the tnfin- 
ished business of last session. 

The chair named Reps. Davies, Treadway and Ballou as the com- 
mittee. 

On motion of Rep. Green, of Ohio, the following resolution was 
adopted: 

_ Resolved, That Past Grand Representative B. C. True be allowed to visit this 
Grand Lodge during the session. 

On motion of Rep. Allen, of Pa., the following resolution was 
adopted: 

Resolved, That five hundred copies of the Journal of Proceedings of this Grand 
Lodge be printed, from day to day, for the use of the members, omitting from 
said daily publication such documents as the members may be furnished with in 
aprinted form. ~ } 
| On motion of Rep. Burr, of N. C.,the following resolution was 
adopted: 


6 


Resolved, That P. G. James G. Cook, of North Carolina, be invited to witness 
the deliberations of this body. of Hi 

The Chair announced the appointment of the following standing 
Committees. 


Committee on the State of the Order—Reps. Smith, of Maine; 
Stokes, of Pa.; Manly, of N C. 

Legislative Committee. —Reps. Cohen, Georgia; Parker, N. H.; 
Merrick, Ky. 

Committee on Correspondence.—Reps. Silsby, Ala.; Thomas, 
Conn.; Wakeley, Wis. pias 

Committee on Finance.—Reps. Read, N. J.; Dibblee, N. York ; 
Wells, Pa. , 

Commmittee on Ippeals.—Reps. Ellison, of Mass.; Morton, of 
Tenn.; Brown, Ind. ~ 

Commitee on Constitutions.—Reps. Mott, of La.; Davies, of N. 
York; Moffet, of Missouri. 

Committee on Petitions. —Reps. Marshall, of Ky.; Dickson, of Del.; 
Shaw, of Alabama. 

Committee on Returns.—Reps. Potts, of Ill.; Fritz, of Pa.; Web- 
ster, of R. I. : 

Committee on Grand Lodges not Represented.—Reps. Askew, of 
Del.; Clark, of Ohio; Phillips, of Va. 

Committee on Printing. —Reps. Moore, of D. C.; Allen, of Pa.; 
Garritt, of Ark. 


P. G. Sire Kennedy, moved the following resolution, which was 
not agreed to— 


Resolved, That the Grand Lodge meet, during the present session, at 9 o’clock, 
A. M., and take a recess daily from 2 to 33 0 ’clock, P. 


Rep. Torre,fof S. C., moved the following resolution: 


Resolved, That the Grand Lodge do meet daily, during the session, at to 
o’clock A. M., and adjourn at 34 o’clock P. M. 

Rep. Mott, of La. moved to amend by substituting the hour of 9 
o’clock A. M., which was agreed to, and the resolution, as amended, 
was adopted. 

The M. W. Grand Sire submitted his Annual Report, which was 
read, and on motion of Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, was referred toa 
Special Committee, for the purpose of distributing the subjects there- 
in referred to, to appropriate committees. 

The chair named as the committee—Reps. Spooner, of Ohio; 
Brown, of N. H.; Hale, of N. Y. 

On motion of Rep. Allen, of Pa., 1000 extra copies of the Crane 
Sire’s Report was ordered to be printed. 

Rep. Fritz» of Pa., presented the Constitution and By-Laws of the 
Grand Lodge of Pennsylv ania, which was referred to the Committee 
on Constitutions. 








c 


Rep. Dibblee, of N. Y., submitted the amended Constitution of the, 
Grand Encampment of N. Y., which was referred to the Committee 
on Constitutions. se 

Rep. Strawbridge, of La:, presented the Constitution of the Grand 
Lodge of Louisiana, which was referred to the Committee on Con- 
stitutions, 

Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, submitted the following proceeding of the 
Grand Camp of Ohio, which, on his motion, was referred to the 
‘Committee on the State of the Order: 


“Resolved, That the Grand Scribe be and he is hereby directed to respectfully 
petition the Right Worthy Grand Lodge of the United States, at their next ses- 
sion, in behalf of this Grand Encampment, to make such alteration in the Con- 
stitution or Laws of the Order, as will permit State Grand Encainpments to.con- 
fer the Subordinate En¢ampment Degrees upon Scarlet Degree members, to 
qualify them for being petitioners for Subordinate Encampment Charters.” 


Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, submitted the following proceedings of the 
Grand Camp of Ohio, which was read and ordered to be spread 
upon the Journal: 


No. 1. Resolved, That this Grand Encampment is in favor of having a dona- 
tion made from the Treasury of the Grand Lodge of the United States, to Ex- 
celsior Lodge, No. I, at Honolulu, (Sandwich Island) to assist in erecting an Odd 
Fellows Hall for their use. ; 

No. 2. Resolved, That the Grand Scribe be and he is hereby directed to re- 
spectfully petition the R. W, G. L. of the United States, at their next session, in 
behalf of this Grand Encampment, to make such alteration in the Constitution or 
Laws of the Order, as will permit State Grand Encampments to confer the Sub- 
ordinate Encampment Degrees upon Scarlet Degree members, to qualify them for 
being petitieners for Subordinate Encampment Charters. ; 

No. 3, Resolved, Thatit is the opinion of this Grand Encampment, that the in- 
terests of the Order call for an Annual Statistical Report of the state of the Pa- 
triarchial branch of the Order, and that our Grand Representatives are hereby di- 
rected to call the attention of the G. Lodge of the U, States to the subject. 

No. 4. Resolved, That this Grand Encampment is in favor of the adoption of 


8 


the plan osed by G. Rep. Spooner, for paying the expenses of Grand Repre~ 
Sehtheysnator pttonding thickesnisus of the G. L. of the U. S., and for the ey! 
ment of the officers salaries, or of some essentially similar plan. “ 
No. 5. Resolved, That this Grand Encampment most cordially approve the 
course of her G. Rep. Wm. B, Chapman, in voting and protesting against the 
attempt of the G. L. of the U. States, to provide uniform Geisntntibas tor State 
G. Encampments and State G. Lodges, and of his votes against the donations to 
P. G, Sire Wildey, and that the thanks of this G. Encampment are due, and they 
are hereby tendered to G. Rep. W. B. Chapman, for the satisfactory discharge 


of his duties generally, at the late session of the G. Lodge of the U. States. \ 


On motion of Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, the following resolution was 


adopted: a 


Resolved, That the first resolution from the Grand Encampment of Ohio, be: 
referred to the Committee on Finance. 

That the second resolution be referred to the Committee on the State of the 
Order. The third to the same committee. 

The fourth, fifth and sixth be laid on the table, 


Rep. Davies, of N. Y., moved the following resolution, which 
wrs agreed to: 

Wueneas, by Art. 10 of the Constitution, a Representative to this Grand 
Lodge is required ‘‘to have attained to the R. P. degree,”’ therefore, 

Resolved, That it be referred to the Committee on the State of the Order, to 
report, whether it is requisite to be duly qualified for a seat in this body, that a 
Representative should be a contributing member in good standing of a subordi- 
nate Encampment. 

Rep. Hale, of N. Y., presented the seal of the Grand Lodge of 
New York. 

Rep. Clark, of Ohio, rose and addressed the Grand Lodge as fol- 
lows: 


To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States: 


M. W.G. Sire anp Broruers:—It has become my painful duty 
to announce the death of P. G. Rep. Albert G. Day, of Ohio, late a 
member of this body. 

The intimate acquaintance of many years which subsisted between 
the deceased and myself, imposes the obligation upon me of calling 
your attention to this bereavement and of asking that this public 
tribute to his worth be placed upon your records. 

For several months previous to his decease, Bro. Day, had been 
suffering with a severe attack of inflammatory rheumatism, accompa- 
nied in its latter stages with a hemorrage of the lungs. To recruit 
his shattered health, he left his home a few weeks ago for the 
East. But alas! he returned only to surrender up his spirit into the 
hands of him who gave it. Thus on the 11th inst., passed away in 
the meridian of life one who by his many noble qualities had en- 


ar "es 
Me) 
: « 
¥\ 
: >). 


9 


deared himself to allthose with whom he was associated in the va- 
rious relations of life. 

Bro. Day was born in the City of Cincinnati, July 18th, 1814.— 
and become connected with our society in the year 1836.. By his 
zealous and untiring devotion to the duties which the Order imposes 
upon its member, he secured the confidence and esteem of those with 
whom he was associated, that they have confided nearly every trust 
within their gift to his care; the records of his Lodge and Encamp- 
ment will show that he has served in nearly every office, while 
the G. Lodge and G. Encampment of his state have bestowed their 
highest honors upon him. : 

Those who were acquainted with our brother, knew him but to re- 
spect and love him for his goodness of heart, his nobleness of mind, 
and his gentlemanly courtesy to all. The philanthropic principles in- 
herent in his nature prompting him at all times to every good and 
noble deed made him almost unknown to himself the friend of and 
and sympathiser with his kind. « 

His loss is one that will long be remembered, and deeply deplored 
by his associates jn his native state. By his fellow members of this 
body, and by all’ who knew him well, whether united by the ties 
of the Order, or those only which bind together the human family. 

I therefore respectfully submit the following resolutions as the 
best tribute of respect that we can pay to his: memory: 

WuereEAs, it has pleased Divine.Providence to remove from us our brother, 
Albert G. Day, of Cincinnati, late a Representative in this body from the state 
of Ohio: Therefore be it. 

Resolved, That while we bow in humble suhmission to the will of Him who 
ruleth Heaven and earth, we can but mourn and regret the death of our former 
associate. 

Resolved, ‘That we sincerely sympathize with the relatives and friends of the 
deceased in their severe afflictions, the irreparable loss they have sustained. 

Resolved, That our sympathy is extended to the brotherhood in the state of 

Ohio, in their heartfelt sorrow for the death of our friend. 

' Resolved, That the members of the Grand Lodge wear the usual badge of 
mourning during the session. 

Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing be transmitted by the Grand Secretary, 
to the Graud Lodge and the Grand Encampment of the State of Ohio; and, also, 
to the father of the deceased, Elias Day. 

The resolutions were, on motion, unanimously adopted. 

Rep. Knight, of Rhode Island, addressed the Grand Lodge 
as follows: é 


Trise with regret, Most Worthy Grand Sire, to perform the me- 
lancholy duty,of announcing to this Grand Lodge the death of P. G. 
Wm. Simons, late representative from the Grand Lodge of Rhode 
Island, to this Grand Lodge. 

His death was universally regretted by all who knew him, and 
Odd-Fellowship has lost one of its brightest ornaments, in the State 
of Rhode Island. 

_ As an Odd-Fellow he was true to the principles of our Order. 
His hand was ever open to relieve the distressed, and his warm 
heart sympathised with the suffering and afflicted. 


10 


His, gentlemanly deportment and social qualities were appreciated, 
and will be long remembered by the officers and representatives. to 
this Grand Lodge, at the session of 1847. 

I beg leave to submit the following resolutions: eer 

Wuerras, Our late brother P, G. Wm. Simons, late Rep. in this body oes ie 
Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, has been removed from us by death— 

Resolved, That the members of this Grand Lodge do sympathise with their 
brethren of the State of Rhode Island, and with the friends of our deceased broth- 
er in the loss they have sustained. 

Resolved, That the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island, and the family of our de- 
ceased brother, be furnished with a copy of the above preamble and resolutions. 
The resolutions, on motion, were unanimously adopted. __ s 

Rep. Torre, of S. C., moved the following resolution, which was _ 
adopted: 


Resolved, That Article 15th of the Rules of Order be amended so as that a mo- 
tion to refer shall be debatable. ‘ 


Rep. Davies, of N. Y., from the committee on that subject; made 
the following report: 


To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States : 


The Committee appointed to examine and report what per eo 
business of the last session requires to be acted upon at this com- 
munication, respectfully report, that upon examination of the pro- 
ceedings, they find the following, viz: 

/Imendments to the Constitution. 
Proposed by Rep. Holmes, of Mo, to ear Lily on Page 64 


tt 


Forman, SO. NA ee 8, “ i 
tc “ 66 Thorington, 6 Towa, “e ‘“c 8, Coed 
7d ve ‘e Chapman, 6c Ohio, te “ce 8, a4 79 162 
“c “c 6c Torre, 6c <a Car.; “6 1G 8, eG 
16 nh a Chapman, "6c Ohio, Weir oi Bih 12, ee 162 
‘i ‘ “ Spooner, “ Ohio, Tee T; Gn 161 
By-Laws. 
Proposed by Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, Art. 25, Page 139 
‘« — Spooner, «(to See. 3, Art. 3, Divs 3, 
of the Digest, on Page 104, ps 
Proposed by Rep. Kneas, of La., Sec. 1 and 2, Art. 1, 


Div. 2, and Art. | and 2 By-Laws, on Page’ 160. 
Proposed by Rep. Detla Torre, of S. C., to amend 12th Rule of 
Order, on Page 155. 
Also, Preamble and Resolutions submitted by Reps. Spooner, of 
Ohio, on Page 56. 
JNO. J. DAVIES,’ 
A. TREADWAY, 
ELI BALLOU. 
Rep. Askew, of Del., subshitted the following resolution, ne 
was agreed to. 


Resolved, That “the Committee on the State of the Order,” be rej eestd to 
report on the propriety of initiating into the Order, any individual gta of 
sight. 3 : 





rn peas 


rat 


Rep. Treadway, of Michigan, offered the following enquiry, which 
was referred to the Committee on the State of the Order. 

Is it competent for a Subordinate, to receive on deposite, a Card of clearance 
for membership, which Card purports to be from a Lodge without the. jurisdic- 
tion to which membership is sought, and at the time the Card is sought to be 
deposited, the Lodge are in possession of a notice from the Grand Lodge, of the 
suspension or expulsion of the Lodge granting the Card, although at the time of 
the granting of said Card, the said Lodge was not under such disability. Also, as 
it regards Visiting Cards, under the same circumstances and disabilities. 

Rep. Phillips, of Virginia, moved the following resolution, which 
was agreed to. j 
Resolved, That P. G. M. BE. C. Robinson of Va. be admitted to visit this Grand 
Lodge. PMR Ae 8 

Rep Zimmerman, of Md., moved the following resolution, which 
was agreed to, 

Resolved, That G. M. Nathan T. Dushane, and P.'G. S. H. Lewyte, be admit- 
ted to witness the deliberations of this body. 

Rep. Barrows, of Miss., moved the following enquiry, which was 
referred to the Committee on the State of the Order. A 

Does a written resignation sever the connexion of a brother finally and en- 
tirely with the Urder, or with his Lodge? 

Would a brother so resigning be held or regarded as subject to the jurisdiction 
of the Lodge from which he has retired? or would any other Lodge have juris- 
diction over him ? ’ 

Rep. Barrows, of Miss., submitted the following proceeding of 
the G. L. of Mississippi, which, on his motion, was received and 
ordered to be spread upon the Journal. ; 

Resolved, That the G. Rep. from the G. Lodge of Miss., to the G. L. of 
the U.S. at its next session, be and is hereby instructed to endeavor to have 
the powers of the G, L. United States, and its officers, clearly defined and pro- 
perly limited. 


Rep. Dickson, of Del., offered the following resolution, which was 
agreed to. 


® Resolved, ‘That the Committee on the State of the Order be requested to take 
into consideration the necessity of fixing a price for the Past Secretary’s degree. 


Rep. Spooner, of Ohio, from the committee on that subject, made 
the following report, which was adopted: 


12 


To the R. W. Grand Lodge of the United States: elt 


The Special Committee, to whom was referred the Annual Re: 
port of the M. W. Grand Sire, for the purpose of distributing the 
several subjects therein referred to, to appropriate Committees, re- 
spectfully recommend : tins 

That so much of said Report as relates to the decisions of the 
M. W. Grand Sire, be referred to the Legislative Committee. 

That so much as relates to the granting of a Dispensation for the 
opening of a Lodge in California, be referred to the Committee on 
Petitions. ER ddkspe: 45 \ 

That so.much as relates. to the Grand Lodge of Texas, be re- 
ferred to the Committee on Grand Lodges and Grand Encampments 
not represented. 


THOS. SPOONER, 
JAS. W. HALE, | _ 
STEPHEN BROWN. 


On motion of Rep. Parker, of N, H., the Grand Lodge, took a re- 
cess for half an hour. 


The Grand Lodge, having re-assembled, on motion of P. G. Sire 
Kennedy, the matter of the opening of the Grand Camps of Rhode 


Island and Wisconsin, and the Grand Lodge of Arkansas, was re- 
ferred to the Committee on Petitions. 


Rep. Wakefield, of N. J., proposed the following amendment to 


the By-Laws, which was laid on the table for one day, under the 
rule: 


4 


Resolved, That Article 8th of the By-Laws of this Grand Lodge be and the 
same is hereby repealed. 


Rep. Strawbridge, of La., offered the following inquiries, which 
were referred to the Committee on the State of the Order: 


e Ist. Can any other than Past Grands be elected to fill the chairs of a Degree 
2odge? p 
2d. If an application for membership in a Subordinate Lodge or Encampment, 
“by deposit of card, be made and rejected—have the Lodge or Vamp the power to 
ePep perseasion of the card, or must it be returned again to the applicantas when 
eposited? fe da buad 
Bu. If a member of a Subordinate Lodge ‘or Encampmeut applies for one or 
more degrees, and should be black-balled—what probation is necessary before he 
can again apply for the same? ; 
4h. If a person desiring membership, does not wish to join a Subordinate Lodge 
or Encampment in the same county or parish in which he resides, can he apply 
to a Lodge or Encampment in an adjoining parish or county, if it be nearer to his 
residence than the Lodge or Encampment in his own parish or county, and if 
both of the counties or parishes be in the same district, and under the supervision 
of the same officer of Grand Lodge? 
5th. To define fully the Laws of the Order in relation to Degree Lodges:— 
First, the titles of the Officers. Second, which offices inust be filled by P. G's. 
Third, eligibility of members far offices. 


Rep. Moffet, of Mo., submitted the following proceeding from 
the Grand Lodge of Mo: 


i3 


I. O..0. F. 


Extract from the proceeding of the R. W. Grand Lodge of the 
State of Missouri. , 

In Grand Lodge, April 20th, 1849, Rep. Leary offered the follow- 
ing, which was adopted: 


Wuerzas, At the session of the Grand Lodge of the United States, of 1847, a 
law was adopted, changing the @. P. W. toa S. A. P. W.; and whereas, in the 
opinion of this Grand Lodge, a Q. P. W. is productive of much advantage 
to the Order, in securing a better compliance with pecuniary duties of members. 
Therefore, ‘ 

Resolved, That the Grand Representative from this Grand Lodge, to the Grand 
Lodge of the United States,-be requested to endeavor to procure the passage of a 
law by that body, re-enacting the use of the Q@. P. W. in Subordinate Lodges. 


A true extract from the minutes. | 
9 “ISAAC M, VEITCH, Grand Secretary. 


-.On motion of Rep. Moffet, of Mo., the inquiry contained in the 
above proceding, was referred to the Committee on the State of the 


Order. — 
Rep. Forbes, of Mo., offered the following inquiries, which were 
referred to the Legislative Committee: 


“Is it proper for a Degree Lodge to ballot on certificates for Degrees from 
Subordinate Lodges ?” 

What constitutes “‘ contempt,” as contemplated by Sec. 25, Art. 3, of the Di- 
gest. Does a member, who neglects to appeer at his trial, lay himself liable for 
contempt? ” 

Can a meatine who has been suspended for the non-payment of his dues, be 
afterwards expelled for criminal or unworthy conduct? 

Can a citizen of a Territory. in which there is no Lodge, be initiated in any 
Lodge in an adjoining State? ; 

Can “half breeds,” or males of mixed blood, who are recognized by the laws 
of the Jand,.as citizens and voters, be admitted into the Order? 

Does a member, under charges for unworthy conduet, enjoy any of the rights 
and privileges of the Order during the pendancy of such charges, and previous to 
nis: trial? ; 

Gan a divorced wile testify upon the trial of her (former) husband, under 
charges, according to Sec. 27, Art. 8, of Digest? 


Rep. Potts, of Illinois, offered the following inquiry, which was 
referred to the Committee on the State of the Order: 


Ts it obligatory on a brother holding a withdrawal card to deposite said card in 
the Lodge nearest his place of residence. ; 

Can a brother holding a withdrawal card deposite said card in a Lodge of a 
different State than that in which he resides? 


_ Rep. Brunet, of Va., moved the following resolution, which was 
agreed to: 


Resolved, That the Legislative Committee be instructed to inquire into anc 
report upon the utility of having the elections of officers of subordinate Lodg- 
es and Encampments (when possible) three months before the commencement of 
their respective terns... 


14 
Rep. Ballou, of Vermont, offered the following inquiry, which was 
referred to the Committee on the State of the Order: ., »\..9.% 


Can a subordinate Lodge be opened at the time of its regular meeting, in the 
absence of all its P. Gi’s, the N.G. and the V. @.? pal if ha ri aad 


If a Lodge can be thus opened, by what officers? PRET ee 
Rep. Crane, of Mo., offered the following inquiry, which was. re- 
ferred to the Committee on the State of the Order: Ti Aisee Nod 


Is it necessary to ballot separately upon the conferring of each degree in the 
encampment work? SHA nae a 
Rep. Burr, of N. C., moved the following inquiry, which was re- 
ferred to the Committee on the State of the Order. ~ AS pce 
Is it competent for State Grand Lodges and Encampments fo elect or ajnigint 


alternate representatives to the Grand Lodge of the United States? 
Is such power vested in Grand Masters and Grand Patriarchs in the recess of 


their respective bodies? 
Can an alternate so elected or appointed be admitted fo membership in this 


Grand Lodge without all the forms of authentication known to the laws, even» 
although satisfactory evidence is olfered of such election or appointment? . ; 


Rep. Olds, of Ohio, submitted the following inquiry, which. was 
referred to the Committee on the State of the Order: ry hae 
A brother makes application for a final card—objections being raised, the ap- 
- plication is referred to a committee: after such application has been so referred 
can. the brother withdraw his application without the consent of the Lodge? y 
Rep. Barrows, of Miss., presented the following inquiry, which 
was referred to the Committee on the State of the Order: 
What jurisdiction or power has a subordinate Lodge over a member who has 


withdrawn his depositing card and permitted the same to expire by the lapse of 
twelve months from its date, without depositing the same? 
Rep. Mott, of La., offered the following resolution, which was 
agreed to: ; 
Resolved, That the Committee on the State of the Order be instructed to report— 
lst. Whether Ancient Odd Fellows, or Odd Fellows holding permanent eards 
not expired, who have presented their cards for deposit in a lodge under the ju- 
risdiction where they reside, and have been rejected, can be permitted to join in 
funeral or other processions, wearing the regalia or insignia of the Order in the 
same as if they were members in good standing. 
2d. Whether any member of the Order can use any of the emblems belonging 
to the Order in connexion with any advertisement or of public display, not di- 


rectly appertaining to the wants of the Order. 
3d. Whether a brother under suspension is compelled to pay dues for the pe- 


riod covered by his suspension. 
Rep, Sessford, of D. of C., offered the following resolution, which 
was adopted: wes 
Resolved, That the Grand Lodge proceed to the installation of the officers elect 
tomorrow at 11 o’clock. » en” 
Rep. Thomas, of Conn., moved the following resolution, which 
was laid on the table under the rule: 


Resolved, That Article 8th of the By-Laws of this Grand Lodge be, and the 
same is so amended, as to add to the same the following words: “Except in the 


15 e 


State of New York, which may have two Grand Lodges and Grand Encamp- 
ments, ; 

Rep. Olds, of Ohio, moved the following inquiry, which was re- 
ferred to the Legislative Committee: . 


v 
Resolved, That a brother receiving a travelling or final card from a subordinate 
Lodge or Encampment be required to sign his name upon its margin in the pre- 
sence of the officers of such Lodge or Encampment as may attest such card. 


On motion, the Grand Lodge adjourned until to-morrow morning, 
at 9 o'clock. 


ul # 








« e F 7 rl ate . 4 ae 7 ty ; ye y 5 
ee biome aca ied: ee he pe Me S yah ie aa 
‘THE POWERS AND JURISDICTION = - 
pe were iy Eat Ee a 5) Veg Pa ad Ri é ie 
Fs ae a ag OF THE fact Neer as a 


ae 


yietss 


courts OF CHANOERY oF THIS STATE, 








pr | | : i 
BY THE COMMISSIONERS ut 





| APPOIN'TED TO CODIFY THE LAWS OF THH STATE. 


= 2 


z 


' BEL AIR, MD, 
ee PRINTED D ey Y JOHN COX. 












ee Aaa 


aw 
“ah 


Whe FLUHiine CULLOUIWIT 


REPORT. 


ABATEMENT AND REVIVOR. 


Src. 1. No suit in chancery shall abate by the death of any of 
the parties in cases where the rights involved in the suit sur- 
vive, 


2. If any of the parties to a suit in chancery, whether com- 
plainant or defendant, shall die after the filing of the Bill or 
Petition, it shall not be necessary to file a Bill of Revivor; but 
any of the surviving parties may file a suggestion of such death, 
setting forth when the death occurred, and who is the legal rep- 
resentative of such deceased party, and how he is representative, 
whether by devise, descent, or otherwise. 


3. Upon such suggestion, a subpoena shall issue for the legal 
representative of the deceased party, commanding him to appear 
and be made a party to such suit, if such representative reside 
in this State; and if such representative is a non-resident, then 
such notice shall be given, instead of the subpoena, as is pro- 
vided for non-resident defendants. 


4. Any representative of a deceased party may appear and 
suggest in writing the death of the party under whom he claims 
and be madea party, in place of the person so dying, and proceed 
with the suit, on giving such notice to the opposite party as the 
court nay direct. 


5. Where an Executor or Administrator dies who was origi-: 
nally a party, or has been made a party as the representative of 
a deceased party, the same proceedings as above stated shall be 
had to make the proper parties, and these provisions are to apply 
to any series of deaths which may occur to representatives who 
are parties, or who are made parties in the progress of the suit. 


6. If any party shall die after a cause has been set down for 
hearing, or submitted by both parties as ready for decision, the 


+ 


decree may be passed as if such party were alive, he having a 
solicitor in court; and such decree shall have the same effect as 
if no death had occurred, except that it shall not be entitled to 
a preference in the distribution of assets, either real or personal. 


7. If any defendant shall die after a decree for an account, 
sale or partition, or after such other proceedings have been had. 
after appearance as would have warranted the passing of such 
decree, or if such deceased defendant shall have answered, con- 
fessing the facts stated in the bill, or shall have set up no defence 
to the relief therein prayed, the court may in its discretion order 
the case to be proceeded in as if no death had occurred, or may 
order a Bill of Revivor or a Supplemental Bill to be filed, and 
the proper representative of such deceased defendant to be made 
a party, as may seem best calculated to advance the purposes of 
justice; Provided, that the heir or other proper representative 
of such deceased defendant, at any time before final decree, may 
appear and be made a party on such reasonable terms as the 
court may direct, and such new party may file an answer to the 
original Bill, subject to such terms as the court may impose, in 
which he may insist on such defences, and none other, as might 
have been made if a Bill of Revivor or Supplemental Bill in 
nature of a Bill Revivor, had been filed against him. 


8. If any of the parties to a suit die after final decree, the 
court may order execution of such decree as if no death had 
occurred, or the court may order a subpoena, scire facias to be 
issued, or a Bill of Revivor to be filed against the proper repre- 
sentative of such deceased party, or pass such other order or 
direct such other proceedings as may seem best calculated to 
advance the purposes of justice; Provided, that the heir or 
other proper representative may appear at any time before exe- 
eution of said decree, and be admitted a party to the suit, on 
such reasonable terms as the court-may prescribe, and such fur- 
ther proceedings may be had as may be necessary to a decision 
of said cause on its merits. 


‘9. If any representative of a deceased party shall fail to 
appear after being summoned, within four days after the return 
day of the subpoena, or shall fail to appear after notice by pub- 
lication, the court may order the appearance of such representa- 
tive to be entered; to have the same effect as if such representa- 
tive had appeared in person and been made a party. — 


10 Any representative of a deceased party who shall secrete 
himself, or in any manner evade the service of any process 


5) 


issued against him, may, on proof of that fact to the satisfaction 
of the court, be proceeded against as if he were a non-resident 
defendant. 


11. In all cases where any of the parties to a suit may die, 
and any party to such syit orvepresentative of a deceased party 
shall leave the State before the process or notice which such 
death may render necessary is served on him, he may be pro- 
ceeded against as if he were a non-resident defendant. 


12. A Bill of Revivor or Supplemental Bill in nature of a Bill 
of Revivor, may be filed instead of a suggestion of the death of 
the party, and notice thereof shall be given to the party against 
whom the same may be filed, if a resident of this State, by sub- 
poena, or service of a copy of such Bill of Revivor:or Supple- 
mental Bill, as the court may direct; or if the party be a non- 
resident, or secrete himself, or evade the service of the summons, 
or copy, or if the residence of the party be unknown, then 
notice by publication may be given as against non- -resident 
defendants. 


13. No suit in Equity shall abate by the marriage of any of 
the parties, but on application of any of the parties the court 
may, on such terms and notice as it shall deem proper, allow 
and order any amendment in the pleadings, and the making of 
any new or additional parties, that such marriage may render 
necessary or proper. 





ALIMONY. 


14. The courts of Equity of this State shall and may hear and 
determine all causes for alimony, in as full and ample manner 
as such causes could be heard and determined by the Laws of 
England in the ecclesiastical courts there. 


mh 
15. In cases where a divorce is decreed, alimony may be 
awarded. 





. AMENDMENT. 


16. From and after the passage of this act, it shall and may 
be lawful upon application of either complainant or defendant to 
any court in this State sitting as a court of Equity, and upon 
payment of such costs as the court may direct, to amend at any 


i 


6 


time before final decree the bill of complaint, answer pleas, de- 
murrers, or any of the proceedings in any cause before the court, 
so as to bring the merits of the case in controversy fairly to trial. 


17. In any suit in chancery where any of the parties are under 
age, feme coverts, of unsound mind or non-residents, the pro- 
ceedings may be amended by making new parties or otherwise, 
and it shall not be necessary to have any new pleading or proofs 
in such cases of amendment, unless the court shall deem such 
new pleadings and proofs necessary to promote the ends of jus- 
tice, except such new party desires to p'ead or objects to the 
proof. 





AUDITOR. 


48. The judge of the court of Equity in each county and the 
city of Baltimore may appoint, during his pleasure, a person of 
integrity, judgment and skill in accounts, to be Auditor for the 
court of which he is Judge, who shall, before he enters upon the 
duties of his appointment, take an oath, to be administered by 
the Judge making the appointment, well and faithfully to exe- 
cute the duties of his office, without favor, affection, partiality 
or prejudice, and all accounts directed to be stated, audited or 
settled by such court, shall be referred for such purpose to the 
auditor, who shall have power and authority to administer an 
oath to all witnesses and persons proper to be examined upon 
such account, and shall audit, state and settle such accounts 
agreeably to the order of the court, and shall return the same to 
the court, to be done with as the court should think just. 


19. The auditor shall be allowed four dollars and sixty-six 
cents per day for every day he shall be reasonably employed in 
stating, auditing and settling any account, to be paid by the 
party desiring such accounts to be stated, audited and settled, 
and taxed in the bill of costs of the party for whom the decree 
may pass in the cause. 





BOOKS. 


20. The courts of Equity shall have power and authority, on 
the application of either party on the trial of any actions at law 
or suits in chancery, either for discovery or relief, to require and 
decree that the parties shall produce either the original books, 
writings or papers, or copies certified by a justice of the peace, 


br 
‘ 


of all such parts of such books, writings or papers in their pos- 
session or power as contain evidence pertinent to the issue, or 
relative to the matters in dispute between the parties, to be used 
as evidence at the trial of such cause; Provided, that before any 
such order shall be made, the party making such application 
shall satisfy the court, on oath or affirmation, that the said 
books, writings or papers, contain material and necessary evi- 
dence, and that such party cannot safely proceed to the trial of 
his case without the benefit of such testimony. 


21. In any case where a court of Equity may order the pro- 
«duction of books in the possession of any party in the said 
court, on the failure of such party to produce such books so 
directed to be produced by the day therein limited, or to shew 
sufficient cause for such failure, during the first four days of the 
succeeding term, or any other term that may be appointed there- 
for, the said court may in its discretion take the allegations in 
the bill of complaint of the party requiring the production of 
the said books pro confesso, and decree ex parte, in such manner 
as shall appear just and reasonable. 





CORPORATIONS. 


22. When a judgment has been recovered against a corpora- 
tion, and an execution on such judgment returned nulla bona, 
the person or body corporate entitled to such judgment may file 
a bill in Equity against all or any persons who may be in any 
manner indebted to said corporation, either for the stock there- 
of or on any other account, and if the court shall find such 
person or persous to be indebted to said cerporation, a de- 
cree shall pass directing such persons so found to be indebted to 
bring the money into court, to be distributed rateably among 
the creditors of such corporation, in the same manner that dis- 
tribution is made on a creditor’s Bill, and any of the defendants 
to said Bill may pray a trial at law of any issue of fact in said 
ease, which issue shall be sent to a court of law for trial, and 
the complainant may require, by said Bill, or by another Bill, 
the officers of such corporation to discover, under oath, who are 
indebted to said corporation, and the amount and consideration 
of such indebtedness, and for the purpose of such discovery, all 
or any of the officers of said corporation may be made defend- 
ants, and any of the parties in said causes shall be entitled to 
an appeal, as allowed in cases in equity. 


ee te te 
PERDS. 10 fips 
23. That in case any deed shall be executed, to the validity 

which recording is necessary by law, and such deed hath not 
been recorded agreeably to law, without any fraudulent inten- 
tion of the party claiming under such deed, that the court shall 
have full power and authority, upon application of the party 
claiming under such deed, and upon such notice being given to 
the party making such deed, his heir, devisee, executor or ad- 
ministrator, as the court may direct, and being satisfied that the 
party claiming under such deed has a fair and equitable claim 
to the premises therein mentioned, to order and decree, without* 
the appearance or hearing of the defendant, that such deed shalt 
be recorded, and when such deed is recorded, it shall, in pursu- 
ance of such decree, be taken and considered in all courts of law 
and equity against the party making such deed, his heirs, devi- 
sees, executors and administrators, in the same state, and to have 
the same effect and consequences to all intents and purposes, as 
if such deed had beef recorded within the time prescribed by 
law; but such deed shall not destroy, or in any manner affect, 
the title of any purchaser of the same thing or premises in case 
of a purchase made after the date of such deed, and without no- 
tice of such deed by the person making such after purchase, 
whether such purchase be by contract or by deed recorded agree- 
ably to law, nor shall such deed, though recorded as aforesaid, 
in any manner affect the creditors of the party making such 
deed, who may trust such party after the date of the said deed. 
The provisions of this section to apply to non-residents as well 
as to residents, and to infants and persons of unsound mind. 





DIVORCES. 


24. The courts of Equity of this State shall have jurisdiction 
of all applications for divorces, and any person desiring a divorce 
shall file his or her bill in the court either where the party com- 
plainant or defendant resides, or if the party against whom the 
Bill is filed be a non-resident, then such Bill may be filed in the 
court where the complainant resides; and upon such Bill the 
same process by summons, notice or otherwise, shall be had to pro- 
cure the answer and appearance of a defendant, as is had in other 
cases in chancery ; and in all cases where from the default of 
the defendant a bill in chancery may be taken pro confesso, the 
court, on a bill for divorce, shall order a commissiun to take tes- 
timony to issue ex parte, and shall decide the case upon the proof 
taken under such commission. 


y 


25. That upon the hearing of any Bill for a divorce, the court 
may decree a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, for the following 
causes, to wit: first, the impotence of either party at the time 
of the marriage; secondly, for any cause which by the laws of 
this State renders a marriage null and void ab initio; thirdly, 
for adultery ; fourthly, when the court shall be satisfied by com- 
petent testimony that the party complained against has abandon- 
ed the party complaining, and that such abandonment has con- 
tinued uninterruptedly for at least three years, and is deliberate 
and final, and the separation of the parties beyond any reason- 
able expectation of reconciliation ; fifthly, when the female be- 
fore marriage has been guilty of illicit carnal intercourse with 
another man, the sarae being unknown to the husband at the 
time of the marriage, and when such carnal connection shali be 
proved to the satisfaction of the court a divorce vinculo matri- 
monii shall be granted. 


26. That divorges a mensa et thoro may be decreed for the fol- 
lowing causes, to wit: first, cruelty of treatment; secondly, ex- 
cessively vicious conduct, abandonment and desertion ; and the 
court may decree a divorce a mensa et thoro in cases where a di- 
vorce a vinculo matrimonii is prayed, if the causes proven be 
sufficient to entitle the party to the same; and in all cases where 
a divorce is decreed, the court passing the same shall have full 
power to award to the wife such property or estate as she had 
when married, or the value of the same, or of such part thereof 
as may have been sold or converted by the husband, having re- 
gard to the circumstances of the husband at the time of the di- 
vorce, or such part of any property as the court may deem reasona- 
ble; and also have power to order and direct who shall have the 
guardianship and custody of the children, and be charged with 
their support and maintenance. 


27. That uo person shall be entitled to make application fora 
divorce where the causes for divorce occurred out of this State, 
unless such person so applying shall have resided within this 
State for two years next preceding his or her application. 


28. That when a Bill prays for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, 
the fact that the parties have been divorced a mensa et thoro shall 
not be taken to interfere with the jurisdiction ef the court ever 
the subject. 


_ 29. That the admission of a respondent of the facts charged 
in a Bill for a divorce who consents to the application, shall not 


2 


10 


be taken of itself as conclusive proof of the facts charged, as the 
ground of the application. 


mr 





DOWER. 


30. That the several courts in this State having Chancery ju- 
risdiction, shall have full concurrent jurisdiction with the courts 
of law in all claims for Dower, and shall have power to try all 
questions of law which may arise in such cases, and give as full 
Telief in any case as the complainant could have obtained here- 
tofore, in either a court of equity or a court of law, or in both 
courts, 


31. That where any infant feme covert shall, in respect of her 
dower, unite with her husband in any conveyance or lease, ex- 
ecuted and acknowledged in form for passing feme convert’s real 
estate of any lands, tenements or Soe Lie and the courts 
of Equity of this State shall, as concerns shch feme covert’s 
dower, deem such conveyance or lease equitable, expedient or 
proper, the said court, on application by any of the parties inter- 
ested, and on proper parties’ defendants being made, may accord- 
ing to the rules of equity, proceed to adjudge and decree that 
such conveyance or lease be confirmed and made valid from the 
time of execution of the same, to every effect, intent and purpose, 
as if the feme covert at the said execution were of the full age 
of twenty-one years. 


32. In all cases where lands and tenements are to be sold under 
a decree, and the widow who is entitled to dower in such lands 
will consent, in writing, to the sale of the entire estate therein, 
the court shall order the same to be sold free from any claim of 
dower, and allow the widow such portion of the nett proceeds of 
sale as may be just and equitable, not exceeding one-seventh nor 
less than one-tenth, according to the age, health and condition of 
such widow. 


33. In all suits by joint owners to sell lands, the court may 
decree a sale free from the claim of dower by the wife of any of 
the parties, provided the wife be a party to the proceedings. — 


34. Where there is a decree for the sale of lands, and a widow 
is entitled to dower therein and will not consent to a sale of her 
dower, the court may, if it appears advantageous to the parties, 
appoint five commissioners to assign and lay off the dower of 
such widow, subject to the confirmation or rejection by the court. 


11 


FRAUD. 


35. That in no case of a proceeding in Equity to vacate any 
conveyance or contract, or other act, as fraudulent against credi- 
tors, shall it be necessary for any creditor or plaintiff in the 
cause to have obtained a judgment at law on his demand, in order 
to the relief sought in the case, either in his own behalf or in 
behalf of any other creditors who shall claim to participate in 
the benefit of the decree in the case ; Provided, however, that when 
the debt of such plaintiff shall not be admitted by the pleadings 
in the case, on the part of the defendant interested in contesting 

_ the same, the court shall, on application of any of the parties, 
send to any court of law an issue for determining the fact of such 
indebtedness, subject to the rules usually applied to issues out of 
chancery. 





INFANTS. ‘ 


36. Where an infant is entitled to any real or personal prop- 
erty in this State, of any kind, or entitled to a reversion, vested 
or contingent remainder, or an executory devise in any such prop- 
erty, or any use, trust or equitable interest therein, the court 
may, if it shall appear to be for the benefit and advantage of 
such infant, decree a sale thereof, if the provisions of the follow- 
ing sections are complied with. 


37. No decree for sale shall pass under the preceding section 
but upon the petition of the guardian or prochein ami of such 
infant, and the appearance and answer of such infant, by guar- 
dian to be appointed by the court, and proof by the depositions 
of at least two discreet and respectable witnesses, to be taken 
under a commission to be issued for that purpose; and the wit- 
nesses shall state in their depositions the value and quantity of 
the property, and the facts and circumstances which show that 
it would be for the benefit and advantage of such infant, that a 
decree for a sale should be passed. 


38. That in all cases where it shall appear to the court by 
proof, as provided in the preceding section, that it would be for 
the benefit and advantage of an infant to raise money by mort- 
gage to improve his real property, or to pay any charges, lens 
or encumbrances thereon, the court may, on application of the 
guardian or next friend of such infant, decree the conveyance of 
any interest, estate or term of years of such infant in any lands 


12 


or real estate by way of mortgage, in such form and on such con- 
ditions as the court may direct; and the court may direct the 
guardian of such infant to execute such conveyance. The pro- 
visions of this section are to apply to the interest or estate which 
any infant may hold in common or jointly with any person of 
full age, and to all interests or estates to which any infant may 
be entitled, in reversion, remainder or otherwise, and may decree 
’ that the interest of the tenant of the particular estate, or the 
holder of the prior remainders, may be mortgaged with the con- 
sent of such tenant or holder. 


39. Where an infant is entitled to any lands or tenements or 
chattels real situated in the city of Baltimore, or is entitled to . 
any particular estate for life or for years, or otherwise, or remain- 
der or reversion, or executory devise, or if an infant be entitled 
to any trust or use in or of such lands; real estate or chattels 
real, or the rents, issues and profits thereof, in all such cases the 
court, on petition of the guardian or next friend, and on being 
satisfied by proof as in cases where a guardian applies for the 
sale of an infant’s real estate, that it would be advantageous for 
said infant to demise such lands, real estate or’chattels real, may 
decree that the same be devised for a term of years, renewable for- 
ever, or otherwise, and yielding such rent, and on such terms and 
conditions as the court may direct ; Provided, that where the in- 
fant is only entitled to a part of the estate, as tenant of the particu- 
lar estate, or remainder man, or otherwise, all the owners of the 
other parts, so as to embrace the entire fee, if a freehold estate, 
or the whole term, if leasehold, assent to the passing of such 
decree. 


40. Any infant who may be presumptively or apparently for 
the time being entitled to any contingent or other remainder, or 
any executory devise, use or trust in any lands or chattels real, 
in said city, may claim a decree for a demise under the preceding 
section. aie 


41. Any person of full age apparently or presumptively for 
the time being entitled to any contingent or other remainder, re- 
version, or executory devise in the lands or chattels real men- 
tioned in the two preceding sections, may assent to a demise or a 
decree therefor on behalf of such estate to which he is so pre- 
suimptively or apparently entitled, 


42. Where the owner of the particular estate for life or years, 
or for other estate, is of full age, the court may, on his applica- 
tion, and with the consent of all the owners of the other parts of 


13 


the estate, decree a demise. If the person whose consent is re- 
quired to authorize a decree for a demise be an infant, or being 
of full age shall refuse to assent, the court may, if such person 
be made a defendant, on considering the pleading and evidence 
in the case, determine whether a decree should be made, and de- 
cree accordingly. 


43. The preceding sections to apply to cases where any or all 
of the defendants are non-residents, and such non-resident de- 
fendants may be proceeded against in the same manner as non- 
resident defendants in other cases ; Provided, that non-resident 
infants, against whom their ouardian or next friend may file a 
petition or Bill for the sale, mortgage, demise or exchange of 
their lands or property, shall be proceeded against as directed in 
cases where a guardian applies for the sale of such infant’s real 
estate. 


44, Upon the application of the guardian or next friend of an 
infant, the court may, if it appears for the benefit and advantage 
of such infant, authorise and decree an exchange of real estate 
or chattels real in which such infant has any estate, interest, 
trust or property or benefit, where the same shall be situated in 
the city of Baltimore, for other real estate or chattels real, or in- 
terest, trust or property therein, also situated in said city; and 
the court in decreeing such exchange, may not require equality 
or sameness in the quantity or character of the estate or inter- 
ests, and the court may appoint Trustees to execute the deeds 
necessary to carry such exchange into effect. 


45. Where the real estate of an infant is sold upon the appli- 
cation of his guardian or prochein ami, the money arising from 
such sale shall be invested, as the court shall direct, in the name 
of such infant, and the surplus interest, after deducting what 
may be necessary for the maintenance and education of such in- 
fant, shall also be invested as aforesaid, and such investments 
shall not be transferred except by order of the court, and any 
transfer without such order shall be void. 


46. No part of the principal arising from the sale of any real 
estate shall be applied to the maintenance of any infant, unless 
the court shall consider it necessary and order the same to be 
done. 


47. Upon the death of such infant, under age, intestate and 
without issue, the proceeds of such sale shall descend or be dis- 
tributed, as the property or estate would if it had not been sold, 


14 


48. In all eases the court shall tax, as part of the costs in the 
ease, a reasonable compensation and ‘allowance to any commis- 


sioner for taking the answer of any infant in said cases: 
Ht 


INJUNCTION. 


49. In all cases of injunction to stay waste, if the person against 
whom the said injunction shall be issued, and upon whom it shall 
be served, shall, at any time after the service thereof, commit, or 
with his consent or direction, suffer or permit to be committed, 
any waste or destruction on the premises, contrary to the import ' 
of such injunction, upon affidavit or other proof of such waste 
or destruction made, the court, upon consideration of the case 
and the circumstances of the landed property in this country, 
shall be of the opinion that waste has really been committed, 
may, upon motion, order an attachment of contempt against the 
person charged with disobeying and committing a breach of such 
injunction; and the said person so offending being in court, upon 
the said attachment, or otherwise, and not making it appear to 
the satisfaction of the court that no waste or destruction has been 
committed since the service of the injunction, may, by order of 
the court, in its discretion, stand committed and be kept in close 
custody until the further order of the court therein; and the 
court shall and may, either before or after commitment or attach- 
ment issued as aforesaid, upon motion, issue a commission to five 
discreet and sensible persons not interested in the dispute or con- 
nected with either of the parties, and residing as near as may be 
to the place where such waste may be committed, directing and 
empowering them, or any three or more of them, to imquire of 
the said waste, if any hath been committed, and of the damage 
done by such waste, and the value of the thing wasted or des- 
troyed, and upon the return of the said commissioners, or any 
three or more of them, ascertaining the waste or destruction and 
value of the same, the court shall and may, upon motion, order 
the said person or persons so having committed the said waste 
or destruction, being in court upon an attachment of contempt 
or otherwise, to stand or remain committed and kept in close 
custody, until the double of the value of the damage found by the 
commissioners as aforesaid, and costs, are fully paid and satis- 
fied to the person sueing forth such injunction, and the fine for 
the contempt; or the court may issue a fieri facias to compel pay- 
ment of double the value of the damages aforsaid and costs, and 
as often as any further waste or destruction shall be committed, 
contrary to the said injunction, the same proceedings and remedy 


15 


may be had against the person or persons having committed the 
same ; and each commissioner as aforesaid appointed shall, before 
he acts as such, take an oath before some justice of the peace, 
well and truly to execute the said commission, without fear or 
favor, partiality or prejudice, which oath shall be returned with 
such commission, and each commissioner shall be allowed two 
dollars per day for every day’s actual service upon such coumis- 
sion, to be paid by the party against whom the complaint for 
committing waste is made, in case it is found by the commis- 
sioners as aforesaid that any waste or destruction shall have been 
committed, and if no waste or destruction shall be found to have 
been committed, then to be paid by the party making complaint, 
and payment of the said allowance to the commissioners as afore- 
said, may be compelled by order of the court, and process for dis- 
obedience to such order may issue as in other cases. / 


50. Whenever an application shall be made by an Executor or 
Administrator for an injunction to stay proceedings at law, the 
court may, in its discretion, prescribe the penalty of a bond, 
which shall be executed to the plaintiff at law, with a surety or 
sureties approved by the court, before the injunction shall be 
granted, and the condition of such bond shall be, to perform such 
order or decree as the court shall finally pass in the cause on the 
hearing of both parties ; and whenever an injunction is obtained 
by an executor or administrator, on filing a Bill and executing 
a bond as aforesaid, the court shall have full power and discre- 
tion to decree against such executor and administrator, as equity 
and good conscience shall seem to require. 


51. In all cases where a Sheriff, or other officer, is prevented 
by an injunction from selling personal property taken in execu- 
tion, he shall deliver back the property so taken in execution to 
the party from whom it was taken, and shall not be answerable 
to the plaintiff at law on account of the same. 


52. Whenever the court, or the Judge thereof shall overrule 
an application for an injunction, it shall be the duty of such court 
or Judge to certify the same at the foot of the bill; and any 
person conceiving himself thereby aggrieved, may present an 
attested copy of the bill and proceedings, with the order refusing 
such injunction, to the Judges of the Court of Appeals, or any one 
of them, who may thereupon direct the injunction to be awarded, 
in case he or they shall be of opinion that such court or Judge 
erred in refusing to grant such injunction ; and when the Judges 
of the Court of Appeals, or any one of them, shall award an in- 


16 


junction in the manner aforesaid, the same proceedings shall be 
had as if the injunction had in the first instance been granted 
by the court first aforesaid. ee ST 


wv 





JURISDICTION. 


53. The Judges of the several Judicial Circuits, the Judge of 
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and the Judge of the Supe- 
rior Court of Baltimore City, shall each, in his respective circuit, 
have and exercise all the power, authority and jurisdiction which 
the Court of Chancery had at the adoption of the present Con- 
stitution. 


54. That each of the Circuit Judges may grant injunctions, or 
pass orders or decrees in Equity, at any place in his cirenit, to 
take effect in any part of his circuit, and may require in writing 
the original papers in any case, or abstracts and transeripts, to 
be produced before him wherever he may be in his cireuit. 


55. Whenever lands lie partly in one county and partly in an- 
other, or partly in a county and partly in the city of Baltimore, 
or whenever persons proper to be made defendants to proceedings 
in chancery reside some in one county and some in another, or 
some in a county and some in the city of Baltimore, that court 
shall have jurisdiction in which proceeding shall have been first 
commenced, 


56. In all cases where a Bill shall be filed for the purpose of 
vacating any deed of manumission to take effect in future, of 
any negro on the ground of fraud, on the rights of creditors, and - 
for the sale of such negro, for the payment of the debts of the 
grantor, it shall not be necessary to issue a subpoena for said 
negro, but in lieu thereof the court shall appoint some gentle- 
man learned in the law, as guardian ad litem of said negro, whose 
duty it shall be to Eup! answer and make such defence for the 
said negro as the said negro might if he were free, and the court 
shall have full power, after a full hearing of the cause, to pass 
such a decree as might be passed in cases where all the parties 
were freemen, and they shall direct all the costs and charges of 
the proceedings, (including a fee of twenty or thirty dollars to 
the guardian in its discretion,) to be paid by the complainant 
and to be taxed and allowed in his bill of costs. 


57. Whenever any cause is ready for hearing, and the parties, 
their solicitors or guardians, shall sign an agreement and file it 


17 


with the Clerk, that the case be submitted for decision to the 
Judge of the court where the suit is pending, such Judge shall 
pass a decree, and such decree shall have the same effect as if pas- 
sed at the regular term of the court. 


58. Wherea sale has been made by an Executor under a sup- 
posed authority derived from a will, the court may, at its discre- 
tion, confirm such sale, on hearing of the parties interested, or 
ex parte, in cases where a Bill might be ice pro confesso. 


59. Where any person dies and leaves real or personal pro- 
perty to be sold for the payment of debts, or other purposes, and 
shall not appoint any person to sell and convey the same, or if 
the person appointed dies, or neglects or refuses to execute such 
trust, the court, upon the petition of any person interested in 
the sale of such property, may appoint a trustee to sell and con- 
vey the same, and apply the money arising from the sale to the 
purposes intended. 


60. In all cases where the court shall decree that a deed of any 
kind shall be executed, a trustee to execute such deed may be 
appointed, and until such trustee shall execute a deed, the decree 
itself shall have the same effect that the deed would, if executed. 


61. Nothing in the testamentary law of this State shall be con- 
strued in any manner to effect the general superintending power 
of the courts having chancery jurisdiction with respect to trust. 


62. A suit in chancery may be maintained for a legacy, in cases 
Where a bond has been given to pay debts and legacies. 


63. No guardian shall diminish the real estate of his ward for 
the maintenance or education of such ward, without the appro- 
prea of the court having equity jurisdiction, and the Orphans’ 

ourt. 


64, If any infant, or person non compos mentis, be entitled to 
any real or personal property in this State, or any interest or 
estate therein, and the same shall be liable to any mortgage, trust, 
lien, or in any way charged with the payment of money, the 
court shall have the same power to decree in such case as if such 
ae were of full age, or such non compos mentis of sound 
mind. 


65. Where an infant, or person non compos mentis, is entitled 
to any real or personal property in this State bound by any con- 


tract, or where an infant or non compos mentis claims any right 
8 


18 


in such property under any contract, the court, in either case, 
shall have the same power to decree the execution of such con- 
tract, or to pass any just and proper decree that the court would 
have if all the parties were of full age and sound mind: Provi- 
ded, that in all decrees for specific performance of a contract 
against an infant, such infant may, at any time within six months 
after he arrives at full age, have a review of such decree; and if 
such infant dies under age, his heirs or proper representative 
may have a review of such decree either within six months after 
the death of such infant, or within six months after such heir 
or representative attains full age. bel nel 


66. The court may, with the assent of the guardian of an in- 
fant, or the trustee or committee of a person non compos mentis, 
and the consent of the other persons of full age and sound mind, 
who may be interested, decree the sale of the real estate of such 
infant or person non compos mentis, to save the personal. 


67. In any case where the surety of a Sheriff, deputy Sheriff 
or Collector of taxes shall apply to the court, by Bill or petition, 
the court, on being satisfied that such surety has suffered, or is 
likely to suffer, loss or damage by reason of his suretiship, may 
appoint a trustee to complete his collections for the benefit of 
those concerned, and the court shall compel such sheriff, deputy 
sheriff or collector, or his representatives, to answer such Bill or 
petition under oath, and disclose the true state of his collection. 


68. If on the filing of a Bill or petition under the preceding 
section, or at any other period in the cause, it shall be made ap- 
pear to the court, by affidavit, that an injunction is necessary to 
the security of the complainant, the court may issue such injunc- 
tion, and may appoint a receiver to take charge of the collections 
of the defendant, and to perform the duty of the trustee men~- 
tioned in the preceding section, till the further order of the court; 
and the court may confer on such receiver such powers, and pass 
such orders, as may be necessary to effect the objects of such in- 
junctions and receivership. 


69. The court may order the delivery to the trustee or receiv- 
er mentioned in the two preceding sections, by any person, of all 
books, papers, and vouchers of or concerning the claims, de- 
mands and debts to be collected by such trustee or receiver, and 
may compel such sheriff, deputy sheriff or collector, or his exe- 
eutors, to disclose, under oath, all the books, papers and vouch- 
ers aforesaid, and where they are deposited, and the persons 
having the control or possession of the same; and such trustee 


19 


or receiver is authorized to collect in the same manner, and by 
the same means, that the officer might whose collection he is 
appointed to complete. 


70. The three preceding sections shall apply to executors and 
administrators of any officer therein named, and to the execu- 
tors and administrators of the surety of any such officer; but if 
the Bill or petition is not filed till six years after the death of 
such sheriff, deputy sheriff or collector, or until six years after 
the term of office has expired, then the trustee or receiver ap- 
pointed by the court shall make his collections in the mode law- 
tul for the recovery of debts. 


71. The courts of Equity in this State shall not hear, try, de- 
termine or give relief 1n any cause, matter or thing wherein the 
original debt or damages doth not amount to fourteen dollars. 





NON COMPOS MENTIS. 


72. The court shall have full power and authority, in all cases, 
to superintend and direct the affairs of persons non compos 
mentis, both as to the care of their persous and the manage- 
ment of their estates, and may appoint a committee, or a trustee 
or trustees for such persons, and may make such orders and de- 
crees respecting their persons and estates, as to the court may 
seem proper. 


75. On the application of any creditor of a person non com- 
pos mentis, the court may decree a sale of the real or personal 
estate of such non compos mentis, or such part thereof as may 
be necessary, to pay the claim of such creditor, if the court is 
satisfied of the justice of the claim, and that there is no other 
means of paying the same. 


74. The court, upon the application of the guardian, commit- 
tee or trustee of any person non compos mentis, may decree the 
sale of any real or personal property to which such non compos 
mentis may be entitled, and order the money arising therefrom 
to be invested in stocks or mortgages, on real estate, or other 
sate securities, as the court may deem most advantageous to such 
non compos mentis; and on the death of such non compos men- 
tis, the principal sum arising from such sales of real estate, 
shall descend to the persons to whom the real estate would have 
descended if the same had not been sold. 


20 


75. The court may order any real or leasehold property of a 
person non compos mentis, situated in the city of | laslktgnite, a 

be leased for any term of years, and renewable forever, or may 
order the surrender of any’ lease of the estate or property of 
such person to be accepted, and the same to be demised anew, on 
such terms and conditions as the court may direct. 


76. In all applications to sell the real or personal property of 
a person non compos mentis, or to demise the real or leasehold 
property of such person, or to accept the surrender of a lease 
thereof, the court shall, before passing a decree, have the appear- 
ance and answer of such person, by his guardian to be appointed 
by the court, and have proof taken, as in other chancery cases, 
as to the value, quantity and condition of the property, and, 
after considering all the circumstances, if the court shall deem 
it for the interest and advantage of such non compos mentis, it 
may decree a sale, lease or surrender of the whole or part of 
such property, on such terms and conditions as the court may 
prescribe; Provided, that the court may decree a sale for the 
payment of debts, without being satisfied that such sale is for 
the interest and advantage of such non compos mentis. 


77. No sale, lease or surrender of a lease of the property, real 
or personal, of a person non compos mentis, shall be valid, un- 
less the same shall be reported to and confirmed by the court. 


78. The court may allow to the trustee, committee, or other 
person charged with the care of the person or estate of any per- 
son non compos mentis, any sum not exceeding ten per cent. on 
the income and expenditures of such non compos mentis, for the 
care and trouble of such trustee, or person so charged as afore- 
said. ; 


79. In all cases where a trustee has been appointed by the 
court for the management of the person and estate of a person 
non compos mentis, the court may decree that the property of 
such non compos mentis, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
sary, be sold for the support of such non compos mentis, or for 
the payment of all reasonable and just expenses which said 
trustee may have incurred. 


80. The court may, on the application of any trustee of a per- 
son non compos mentis, and receiving proof that it is necessary 
and proper to confine such person, direct such trustee to send the 

erson under his charge to any hospital im the vicinity of the 
city of Baltimore, provided he can be there received, to remain 


21 


until the further order of the court; and any person non compos 
mentis who has heretofore been sent to any hospital or recepta- 
cle in Philadelphia under an order of a court of Equity of this 
State, may be removed, by order of the court of the county or 
city having equity jurisdiction from which such person was sent, 
to any of said hospitals near the city of Baltimore, and the 
court may enforce its orders as in other cases. 





NON RESIDENTS. 


81. If any suit in chancery, by Bill or petition, respecting in 
any manner the sale, partition, conveyance or transfer of any 
real or personal property lying or being in this State, or to fore- 
close any mortgage thereon, or to enforce any contract. or lien 
relating to the same, or any use, trust, or other interest therein, 
and any or all of the defendants are non-residents, the court in 
which such suit is pending may order notice to be given to such 
non-residents of the substance and object of such bill or peti- 
tion, and warning them to appear by a day therein stated, and 
if such non-residents shall not appear at the time stated in such 
notice, the Bill or petition may be taken pro confesso, or a com- 
mission to take testimony mnay be issued ex parte, and such de- 
cree passed as may be just and equitable. 


82. The preceding section to apply to all non-resident defend- 
ants, as well in Bills of interpleader as in other suits, whether 
non compos mentis infants or of full age, except in cases where 
application is made by the guardian or prochein ami of any non- 
resident infant to sell, lease or mortgage the real or personal 
property of such infant; and in such cases, two or more com- 
missioners, who reside near such infant, shall be appointed, with 
power to any oue to act, who shall go to said infant and assign 
a guardian ad litem for such infant, and take his answer by such 
guardian and return the same, and after the return of such 
answer, the same proceedings shall be had as if such infant 
were a resident of this State; and with this further exception, 
that where non-resident defendants are non compos mentis, they 
are to be proceeded against as directed by the following section. 


83. In all cases in chancery, if any person non compos mentis 
and not residing in this State is a defendant, the court may 
order notice to be given to such non-resident, by publication in 
some newspaper, to appear and answer such bill or petition, and 
upon the failure of such non-resident to appear and answer the 


22 


bill or petition, such decree may be passed as the circumstances 
of the case may require; Provided, that in all cases when such 
non-resident 1s non compos mentis, no decree shall pass, unless 
the allegations in the bill or petition are fully proved, under a 
cominission to be issued for that purpose; And provided further, 
that in all cases of non compos mentis non-resident defendants, 
the court, at the time of issuing the commission to take testi- 
mony, shall assign a solicitor for such non-resident defendant or 
defendants to cross-examine the witnesses, which solicitor shall 
be paid by the plaintiff, or out of the estate of the defendant, at 
the discretion of the court, 


84. Where a decree has passed for the specific execution of 
any contract or agreement for the sale or conveyance of real or 
personal estate, or any interest therein, against a non-resident 
defendant, without his having answered, such non-resident may 
file a Bill of Review at any time within twelve months after the 
date of the decree; and if such non-resident be an infant, he 
may file a Bill of Review at any time within twelve months af- 
ter he arrives at age; or if such infant dies under age, his heir 
or other representative may file a Bill of Review at any time 
within twelve months after the death of such infant; and if 
such non-resident defendant be non compos mentis, he may file 
a Bill of Review at any time within twelve months after he be- 
comes of sane mind, or his heir or other representative may do 
so at any time within twelve months after the death of such 
non compos mentis. But the provisions of this section are not 
to apply to any decree to foreclose a mortgage, or for sale of the 
mortgaged premises, or to a decree for the sale of real or per- 
sonal property to pay debts or liens, or to a decree for the parti- 
tion of any real or personal property, or to a decree for the sale 
of any real or personal property for the purposes of Qivision. 


85. In all cases where two successive subpoenas against a de- 
fendant in chancery has been returned non est, or upon the re- 
turn of one subpoena non est, and proof, by affidavit, that the 
defendant hath kept out of the way, or secreted himself, to avoid 
the service of the subpoena, he may be proceeded against as if 
he were a non-resident. 


86. in all cases where it is unknown whether a person who 
ought to be a party to a Bill in chancery be living or dead, or 
whether such person, if dead, has left any heirs, or if the heirs 
be unknown, in all such cases the bill may describe such un- 
known persons as the heirs of the person who, if living, would 


23 


be the napoles party, and the court shall order notice, by publi- 
cation, to be given to such persons, according to their descrip- 
tion in the bill, and the same proceedings shall be-had against 
them as are now had against non-resident defendants named in 
a Bill in chancery ; and any decree which may be passed, shall 
have the same effect against those described as the heirs of a 
particular person, as if the party whose heirs they are supposed 
to be were living and a party to such decree. The provisions of 
this section to apply to all cases, including Bills of Revivor, 
Bills of Interpleader and Supplemental Bills, 


87. Any non-resident, or person proceeded against as a non- 
resident, may appear and answer, before final decree, on such 
reasonable terms as the court may prescribe. 


88. In all suits in chancery against non-residents, or against 
persons who may be proceeded against as if they were non-resi- 
dents, the court may order notice to be given, by publication in 
one or more newspapers, stating the substance and object of the 
Bill or petition, and warning such party to appear on or before 
the day fixed in such order,and shew cause why tle relief 
prayed-should not be granted, and such notice shall be published 
as the court may direct, not less, however, than once a week for 
four successive weeks three months before the day fixed by such 
order, for the appearance of the party; Provided, if a copy of 
the order be personally served on stich party three months be- 
fore the day so fixéd for his appearance, such service shall have 
the same effect as a publication. 





PARTITION, 


89. The court may-decree a partition of any lands or teine- 
ments, on the Bill or petition of any joint or concurrent owner ; 
or if if appears advantageous to all the parties interested, the 
court may decree a sale and a division of the money arising 
thereffom among the parties, according to their respective 
rights. This section to apply to all interests in lands, whether 
legal or equitable, or whether leasehold or freehold, and also to 
apply to cases where all the parties are of full age, and to cases 
where some of the parties are of full age and some infants or 
non compos mentis, and-also applies to cases where any or all of 
the parties are non-residents. 


PRACTICE. wig 


90. In casé where the defendant has failed to appear, ‘ot to 
answer after appearance, and an ex parte commission has issued, 
such cases may be set down for final hearing after thirty days 
from the return of such commission, unless the defendant shall 
have obtained leave to answer, and the court shall consider fur- 
ther time necessary. 


91. Where some of the defendants have answered, and some 
are in default for not appearing or answering, and the testimony 
has been taken under the commission issued in the cause, as 
may be done without issuing an ex pafte commission, the case 
may be set down for final hearing at any time after the return 
of the commission, with the assent of the defendants who have 
answered, unless the defendants in default shall have obtained 
leave to answer, and the court shall consider further. time ne- 
cessary. 


92. Upon any plea or demurrer being overruled, upon argu- 
ment or otherwise, or being withdrawn without leave of the 
court, the party w hose demurrer or plea is so overruled or with- 
drawn, shall pay to the opposite party the sum of thirteen dol- 
lars, and the costs thereof, and be in contempt until the said 
sum of money and costs are fully paid. 


93. That no answer of any defendant to any Bill or petition 
to be hereafter filed in the courts of Equity in this State, shall 
be evidence against the complainant or complainants, at the 
hearing of the cause, unless the complainant or complainants 
shall read stich answer as evidence against the defendant making 
the same, in which case the answer shall have the same effect as 
evidence against the party so reading the same, as answers in 
chancery have heretofore had ; Provided, this section shall not 
apply to motions to dissolve an injunction or to discharge a Re- 
ceiver. 


94, That in order to enforce obedience to the process, rules 
and orders of the courts of Equity, in all cases where any party 
or person shall be in contempt, for disobedience, non-perform- 
ance or non-observance of any process, rule or order of the 
courts of Equity, or for any other matter or thing whatsoever 
whereby or wherein a contempt, according to the rules, law 
practice, or course of the said courts, may be incurred, such 
party or person shall, for every such contempt, and before he 


25 


shall be released or discharged from the same, pay to the clerk 
of the court, (to be paid by him at the end of every six months 
to the Treasurer for the use of the State,) a sum not exceeding 
twenty-six dollars, as a fine for the purgation of every such con- 
tempt, and that the said party or person being in court upon 
any process of contempt, or otherwise, upon the order of the 
court, shall and may stand committed and remain in close cus- 
tody until the said process, rule or order shall be fully per- 
formed, obeyed and fulfilled, and until the said fine or fines for 
such contempt imposed by the said court, and the costs, shall be _ 
fully paid. 


95. In all cases in chancery a rule security for costs may be 
laid at any time before a final decree is passed, by any defend- 
ant, against a complainant non-resident at the time of filing 
the bill, or becoming so after the filing thereof. 


96. In all cases the defendant in chancery may exhibit inter- 
rogatories to the complainant, which shall be answered by him 
in writing, upon oath, and such answer shall be evidence in the. 
cause, in the same manner and .to the same effect that the de- 
fendant’s answer to the complainant’s bill is evidence, and there 
shall be the same process, and the same power exercised by the 
court, to compel the complainant to answer the defendant’s in- 
terrogatories, as can be issued or lawfully exercised to compel 
the defendant to answer the plaintiff’s bill, and if such plaintiff 
be a non-resident, and shall fail to answer such interrogatories 
by a certain day, to be fixed by the court, the court may order 
that his Bill be dismissed, with costs, to the defendant. The 
court, in fixing the period within which a plaintiff shall answer 
as aforesaid, shall give a reasonable time, regard being had to 
the place of plaintiff's residence, and, if justice require it, the 
court may extend the time. 


97. If a complainant against whom an attachment has issued 
for not answering the interrogatories of the defendant, and such 
attachment is returned served, shall not put in a sufficient an- 
swer to suck interrogatories by the fourth day of the term to 
which such attachment is made returnable, the court may dis- 
miss his Bill; or the court may give such further time to an- 
swer as may seem reasonable. 


98. When a court of Equity shall require bond, with or with- 
out security, to be given in any case, and the parties concerned 
therein shall be numerous, or if it shall appear for other rea- 


26 


sons proper, the court may take such bond in the name of the 
State as obligee, and the same may be sued on by any person 
interested as public bonds may, and a copy, certified by the clerk 
of the court, under the seal thereof, shall be received in evi- 
dence, to the same effect as certified copies of public bonds. 


99. That payment of the allowances to commissioners, wit- 
nesses, auditors and clerks to commissioners, may be compelled 
by order of the court, and process of contempt for disobedience 
to such order may be issued as in other cases. 


100. In all causes in any court of Equity, all objection to the 
competency of witnesses and the admissibility of evidence, and 
to the sufficiency of the averments of the bill or petition, shall 
be made by exceptions filed in the cause, and no point relating 
to the competency of witnesses, or the admissibility of evidence, 
or the sufficiency of the averments of the bill or petition, shall 
be raised in such causes in the Court of Appeals, or noticed, or 
determined, or acted upon by the Court of Appeals, unless it 
shall plainly appear in the record that such point had been 
raised by exceptions as aforesaid, in the said court of Equity ; 
and in all causes in the courts of Equity, it shall be the duty of 
the said court to file their opinions for or in respect of any final 
decree or decretal order, whenever such decree or order shall 
have passed npon argument, oral or in writing, on the part of 
any of the parties in such cause. 


101. That on appeal to the Court of Appeals from any decree 
or order of a court of Equity, the party or parties who may 
have been defendants in the court below, shall not be permitted, 
in the appellate court, to urge or rely upon any objection to the 
jurisdiction of the court below, unless it shall appear by the re- 
cord that such objection was made or raised in said court. 


102. It shall not be necessary in any case for the foreclosure 
or sale of mortgaged property, to make the heirs of the mort- 
gagees parties to the same, but any decree upon any bill for 
foreclosure or sale aforesaid filed by the executors or adminis- 
trators of the mortgagees, shall have the same effect as if the 
said heirs were parties. 


103. If any defendant, after appearance and before he puts in 
a sufficient answer, shall leave the State, or if any non-resident 
defendant appears and does not put in a sufticient answer, the 
court may order such defendant to answer by a particular day, 
and upon his failure to comply with such order, the Bitl may be 


27 


taken pro confesso against such defendant, or a commission ex 
parte may be issued, in the discretion of the court. 


104. That under any Bill of Review, or other proceeding to 
set aside or reverse any order or decree passed in any case in a 
court of Equity, in which any infant or person non compos 
mentis has been interested, on the ground that no testimony 
was taken to prove the allegations in the Bill or petition filed 
in such case, or that no replication was put in, it shall and may 
be lawful for the person or persons interested to supply said 
proof and pleas, in the same manner as the same could have 
been furnished under such original bill or petition. 


105. In deciding on exceptions to answers, the court may 
award the costs of the exception and the order thereon to the — 
party prevailing, including a fee to the solicitor or attorney. 





PROCESS. 


106. That whenever a subpoena shall issue from a court of 
Equity on a Bill filed in said court, and such subpoena hath 
been returned summoned as to any of the defendants therein 
named, and the defendants, or any of them, so returned sum- 
moned shall fail to appear, according to the exigency of the said 
writ, or having so appeared, shall fail to put in a sufficient an- 
swer, on oath, to the said bill within the time which may be 
prescribed by the court from which the said writ issued for an- 
swering to such bill, the said court is authorized and required, 
on the application of the complainant, to enter an interlocutory 
decree in such cause, and to issue a commission, ex parte, to one 
or more persons, for the taking of testimony to support the alle- 
gations in the said bill, which commission shall be issued, pro- 
ceeded in and .returned in the same manner, and the testimony 
taken and returned under the same shall have the same effect as 
if issued and returned in the usual way, on answer, general re- 
plication and issue, and the court shall proceed to a tinal decree 
in the cause, in the same manner as if the defendant had ap- 
peared and put in his answer. 


107. That whenever any such bill as is mentioned in the pre- 
ceding section shall charge any matter or thing as being within 
the private knowledge of the defendant and shall pray a discov- 
ery, on oath, as to such matter or thing, and an interlocutory 
decree, as provided for in the said section, shall have been en- 


28 
tered, and the complainant shall satisfy the court, ae, 
uch mat- 


to be taken in open court and filed in the cause, that suc 

ter or thing does rest in the private knowledge of the defend- 
ant, and that there is reasonable ground for believing, prime 
facie, that such matter or thing does exist, the said court is au- 
thorized and required to order the bill as to such matter or 
thing, the same being sufficiently alleged and charged, to be 
taken pro confesso, and to proceed to make a final decree in the 
case, in the same manner as if such matter or thing had been 
proved on a commission or admitted by answer, | ; 


108. That any defendant against whom an interlocutory de- 
cree shall be entered under the preceding section, and also any 
defendant against whom an order to take a bill as to any matter 
or thing, pro confesso, may appear at any time before final de- 
cree and file his answer, on oath, to the bill, which shall be filed ~ 
forthwith, or within such reasonable time as the court in its dis- 
cretion, and on special cause shown by affidavit, shall appoint ; 
and on such answer being filed, such proceedings shall be had 
as would or might have been had in case such answer had been 
filed before the passage of such interlocutory decree; but the 
court shall impose such terms on the defendant as the condition 
of permitting such answer to be filed, as such court may, in its 
discretion under all the circumstances of the case, judge reason- 
able and proper for avoiding delay or expense, and for the at- 
tainment of justice; and the filing of such answer shall in no 
case affect the validity of any commission previously issued to 
take testimony, or of the proceedings, or any of them, under 
such commission, or of any testimony previously taken and re- 
turned under any such commission. 


109. The court may, for the purpose of executing a decree, or 
to compel the defendant to perform and fulfil the same, issue at- 
tachment of contempt, attachment with proclamation and se- 
questration against the detendant, and may order an immediate 
sequestration of the real and personal estate and effects of the 
defendant, or such parts thereof as may be necessary to satisfy 
the decree and clear the contempts, or may issue a fieri facias 
against the lands and tenements, goods and chattels of the de- 
fendant, to satisfy the said decree, or may issue an attachment 
by way of execution against the lands, tenements, goods, chat- 
tels and credits of the defendant, to satisty the said decree, or 
the court may cause, by injunction, the possession of the estate 
and effects whereof the possession or a sale is decreed, to be de- 
livered to the plaintiff, or otherwise, according to the tenor and 


29 


import of such decree, and as the nature of the case may re- 
quire; and in case of sequestration, the court shall and may 
order payment and satisfaction to be made out of the estate and 
effects so sequestrated, according to the true intent and meaning 
of the decree; and in case any defendant shall be arrested and 
brought into court upon any process of contempt issued to com- 
pel the performance of any decree, the court may, upon motion, 
order such defendant to stand committed, or may order his es- 
tate and effects to be sequestrated, and payment made as above 
directed, or possession of his estate and effects to be delivered, 
by injunction as above directed, until such decree or order shall 
be fully performed and executed, according to the tenor and true 
meaning thereof, and the contempts cleared; Provided, that 
where the decree only directs the payment of money, no defend- 
ant shall be imprisoned, and that process of commission of re- 
bellion and sergeant-at-arms be abolished. 


110. In all cases where a Bill for discovery merely is filed 
against a defendant of full age, and the subpoena issued thereon 
is returned summoned, and the defendant fails to appear, or if, 
after appearance, fails to answer within the time fixed by the 
rules or order of the court, upon satisfactory proof, by affidavit 
or otherwise, being produced to the court that such subpoena 
was duly served, the court may examine the complainant in 
open court, or upon interrogatories, on oath, touching the truth 
of the allegations in the bill, and if from such examination the 
court shall be satisfied, prima facie, that the allegations in the 
bill are true, then a decree shall be passed which shall have the 
same effect, in evidence or otherwise, as the answer of the de- 
fendant confessing all the allegations of the bill could have; 
or if the subpoena shall be returned summoned, and the defend- 
ant shall fail to appear, or, after appearance, shall fail to an- 
swer, an attachment of contempt may issue, and if the said at- 
tachment is returned served, and the defendant fails to appear 
or answer as the case may be, the court, upon being satisfied of 
the service of both subpoena and attachment, may pass a decree 
pro confesso, or if in such case the attachment is returned non 
est inventus, an attachment with proclamations may issue; and 
if the defendant shall fail to appear or answer, as the case may 
be, the court, upon being satisfied of the service of the subpoe- 
na, may pass a decree pro confesso, without examining the com- 
plainant, in its discretion, and such decree, in either case, to 
have all the effect, in evidence or otherwise, that the answer of 
oy defendant confessing all the allegations in the Bill gvould 
lave. 


30 


111. In a suit against a corporation, whether foreign or do- 
mestic, if neither the President nor any of the directors, offi- 
cers or agents reside in this State, such corporation may be pro- 
ceeded against as a non-resident defendant, by notice by publi- 
cation, and upon its failure to appear and answer according to 
such notice, a decree pro confesso may be passed against it, or a 
commission ex parte may issue. 





SALES. 


112. When any suit is instituted to foreclose a mortgage, the 
court may decree that unless the debt and costs be paid by the 
time fixed by the decree, the property mortgaged shall be sold, 
and such sale shall be for cash, unless the complainant shall con- 
sent to a sale on credit. 


113. Where any person dies, leaving any real estate in posses- 
sion, remainder or reversion, and not leaving personal estate 
sufficient to pay his debts, on a suit instituted by any of his credi- 
tors, the court may decree that all the real estate of such per- 
sons, or so much thereof as may be necessary, shall be sold to 
pay his debts; this to apply to all cases where the heirs or de- 
visees are residents, or non-residents, or are of full age, or infants, 
or of sound mind, or non-compos mentis, and to cases where the 
party left no heirs, or where it is not known whether he left heirs 
or divisees, or if the heirs or devisees be unknown. 


114. The court may decree a sale of vessels, or other personal 
property, held by two or more persons jointly. 


115. When there is a decree for the sale of any reversion in 
lands to which rent is incident, the court may order any rent in 
rear to be sold with such estate, and the purchaser shall have 
the same right to recover such rent by distress, entry or action, 
as if he had been owner of the estate when the rent accrued. ~ 


116. In all cases where a suit is instituted for the sale of real. 
or personal property, or where from the nature of the case a sale 
is the proper mode of relief, the court, in its discretion, may 
order a sale of the property before final decree, if satisfied clear- 
ly by proof that, at the final hearing of the case, a sale will be 
ordered, and order the money arising from such sale to be deposi- 
ted or invested, to be disposed of as the court shall direct by the 
final decree. 

. 


31 


117. That the court shall have’full power and authority, on the 
application by Bill or petition of a trustee appointed by said 
court to sell real estate, to compel the purchaser thereof to com- 
ply with all or any of the terms of such sale, by process of at- 
tachment, or other execution suited to the case ; or the said court, 
upon such application, may direct the property purchased to be 
re-sold, at the risk of such purchaser, upon such terms as the 
court may direct; and in such case, if the proceeds of the re-sale, 
after payment of the expenses thereof and of all costs of pro- 
ceeding, shall not be equal to the payment of the purchase money 
originally bid therefor, the court may order and direct the differ- 
ence to be paid by the said purchaser. 


118. That all sales made under a decree or order of the court, 
shall be made on such terms and conditions as the court may de- 
termine, except where the sale is required by law to be made for 
ready money. 


119. In case a sale shall be made on credit, the court may, upon 
application of the mortgagee or creditor, direct any bond taken 
in consequence of such sale to be assigned to such mortgagee or 
creditor, and the assignee or assignees may, respectively, sue on 
such bonds in their own names. 


120. The court may decree a sale of an equitable title in any 
case where a decree for the sale of the legal title could be pas- 
sed, and the purchaser of such equitable title shall have the same 
remedy for obtaining the legal title, that the person whose equit- 
able interest he purchased would have had if no sale had been 
made. 





TRUSTEE. 


121. In all cases where a decree for a sale passes, the court may 
appoint a Trustee to make such sale. 


122. Every trustee appointed by decree to make a sale, before 
he sells shali give bond to the State, in such penalty as the court 
or the Judge thereof may prescribe, and with surety or sureties 
to be approved by the Judge of the court or the Clerk thereof, 
with condition that such trustee shall faithfully perform and 
execute the trust reposed in him, and such trustee shall report, 
under oath, any sale he may make, to the court, and also report 
his proceedings whenever he may be required by the court. 


32 


123. No sale made by a trustee appointed by the court shall 
be valid unless such sale is confirmed by the court ; and the court 
may order any such trustee to bring into court any ron Re 





or bonds he may receive as for the purchase money on any 
he may make, to be disposed of as the court may direct. 


124. Any surety of a trustee who is afraid of suffering from 
suretyship, may apply to the court that appointed such trustee, 
and the court shall order the trustee to give counter security by 
a day named in such order, and if the trustee shall fail to give 
counter security, to be approved by the court, by the time so fix- 
ed, the court shall remove such trustee, and appoint a trustee in 
his stead to complete the trust, and the court shall order such 
removed trustee to deliver over to the new trustee all the trust 
property in his hands, and all books, bonds, notes, evidences of 
debt, and papers belonging to or in any wise relating to the 
trust estate, and also to pay over to such new trustee all the 
money due by him on account of said trust; and the court may 
compel a compliance with such order by attachment and seques- 
tration, or the new trustee may bring suit on the bond of such 
removed trustee. 


125. The court may allow to any trustee making a sale under 
a decree, a commission from one to seven and a half per centum 
on the amount of sales, for his trouble in performing his trust. 


126. In all cases where a trustee has been appointed by will 
or deed to execute any trust, and any person interested in such 
trust shall make it appear to the court that it is necessary, for 
safety of those interested in the execution of the trust, that the 
trustee should give bond and security for the due execution of 
the trust, the court may order that such bond be given, on or be- 
fore such day as the court shall name; and if the bond, with 
such security as the court shall approve, be not given by such 
trustee, then the court may remove such trustee and appoint one 
in his stead, who shall give such bond and security as the court 
may require. 


127. The bond of every trustee appointed by the court, and the 
bonds of trustees who are ordered by the court to give bond, 
shall be filed with the Clerk of such court and recorded, and a 
copy thereof shall be evidence. ; 


33 


TESTIMONY AND WITNESSES. 


128. That a commission shall issue to perpetuate testimony, 
on a Bill for that purpose, before any appearance of the party 
defendant, to such two persons, in the usual manner, as the court 
may approve, and on return of said commission, if no good ob- 
jection be made thereto in twelve months from the time of such 
return, the court shall order the same to be recorded in perpetual 
memory. 


129. That all commissions which shall be issued to take testi- 
mony in causes pending in any court of Equity of this State, 
shall be issued and directed to two persons to be named and ap- 
pointed by the said court, or the Judge thereof. 


130. That a commission to take testimony may, in any case in 
Equity, issue to one person, with the consent of the parties. 


131. Where a commission to take testimony in Chancery shall 
issue to two commissioners named and appointed by the court or 
Judge, either one of said commissioners may execute such com- 
mission. 


132. That the Clerks of the courts having Equity jurisdiction 
may issue commissions to take testimony to the commissioners 
appointed in each county for that purpose, and such commissions 
to have the same effect as if ordered by the court; and if the 
parties agree thereto, in writing, the Clerk may issue a commis- 
sion to any commissioner or commissioners named in such agree- 
ment. 


133. That with a view to the speedy execution and return of 
commissions to take testimony, the court, or any Judge thereof, 
shall prescribe such rules as the nature of the case may require. 
Each commissioner to take testimony shall be allowed four dol- 
lars per diem for every day he shall actually serve in the execu- 
tion of such commission, to be paid by the parties, according to 
the time that such commissioner serves in taking the testimony 
of such parties respectively, and to be taxed as part of the costs 
of the suit; and the clerk to any commissioner to take testimony 
shall be allowed two dollars and sixty-six cents per diem, to be 
paid as the per diem tothe commissioner is directed to be paid, 
and to be taxed as aforesaid. 


134. That a witness attending such commissioner under a sum- 
mons by him issued, or at the request of either of, the parties, 
5 


34 


‘shall be allowed sixty-six cents per day for every day’s attendance, - 


and itinerant charges, to be ascertained by the commissioner, 
which allowance shall be paid by the party summoning or re- 
questing such witnesses to attend, and shall be taxed as part of 
the costs of suit. 


135. Where any witness is summoned by a commissioner to 
take testimony in a Chancery suit or proceeding, to appear be- 
fore such commissioner to give testimony in such suit or proceed- 
ing, and such witness shall refuse or neglect to attend, or attend- 
ing, shall refuse to answer such interrogatories as are propoun- 
ded to him, in all such cases the commissioner, at the request of 
either party to such suit or proceeding, shall immediately certify 
such default or neglect, under his hand as such commissioner, to 
the Clerk of the court where such suit or proceeding is pending, 
who, upon the receipt thereof, shall forthwith issue an attach- 
ment against the person named in such certificate, and the court 
may allow such process to compel such witness to attend and 
give evidence in open court, in such suit or proceeding, at such 
term of the court thereafter as the party applying for such at- 
tachment shall request, and such process shall be directed to the 
sheriff or coroner of the county wherein the person to be attach- 
ed resides, and after return is made, such process may be renew- 
ed from term to term, as the case may require ; Provided, that 
the party obtaining such process shall give written notice to the 
opposite party, or his counsel, of the time of the return of every 
such process. 


136, The parties, their attornies or agents, shall havea right 
to be present at the execution of any commission to take testimony, 
and the interrogatories of the respective parties shall be read by 
the commissioner, so that they may be heard by the parties, their 
attornies or agents, respectively, and such party, on application, 
shall have a copy of the interrogatories before any witness is ex- 
amined on them, and if either party, after witnesses are examin- 
ed on interrogatories by the adverse party, shall desire the com- 
missioner to adjourn to a future day to receive additional inter- 
rogatories, proofs and witnesses, the commissioner shall do so, 
and give such party a fair opportunity of adducing all his testi- 
mony ; but if the party requiring an adjournment shall neglect 
or refuse to exhibit his interrogatories and produce his evidence 
at the meeting in consequence of such adjournment, and it shall 
appear to the commissioner that delay and procrastination is ef- 
fected by such party, then no further time shall be given him for 
the purpose aforesaid, 


35 


137. That in any case in Chancery upon the filing of the ans- 
wer of an infant defendant, taken in the manner prescribed by 
law, admitting the facts stated in the Bill, or making no defence 
to the claim of complainant, a commission to take testimony may 
issue at the instance of the complainant, directed to such person 
as the court may appoint, 


138. In all cases where any of the defendants have appeared 
and answered, and a commission to take testimony has issued, 
and there are other defendants who are in default for not appear- 
ing or answering, and against whom a commission ex parte 
might issue, it shall not be necessary to issue such ex parte com- 
mission ; but the complainant may take all his testimony under 
the commission issued as aforsaid, and such testimony shall be as 
available against the defendants who are in default, as if the 
same was taken under an ex parte commission. 


“Se cay atyane®, 


‘ 
’ 


& 


ie i i i RS i 








IST OF eg) 
‘. 


CHANCERY LAWS. 






«1715, chapter 41 1813, chapter 21 1832, chap. 197 1842, chap. 2 
tk 8 i £ ee 


723 1816, “ 134 302 

1773, Ste 5 tc 15d a & 306 1843, 

er ety, ge esa) 9 an 

a 

Menhgo, > > &,, 1818) ) {138 “ “983 & 
1784, 58 “ “193 «1834, 6 “ 
1785, “ 72 1819, “144 305 «“ 
a aS “« “ 183 1835 “346 1845 
1786, “ 49 1820, “* 161 7 6 364 the 
tt UG 53 a “© 19] be  '¢¢ 380 1846, O 
1787 “ 30 1824, 133 1886 “ 198 « a agaus a ears 
1789, © 46 1825, * 103 wt 949 (chet) Sql capa 
1790, a3 38 oe y Ce hiheg i ce 269 1847, “ 150 Peay “ 
u 69 «= 1826, #4157 “* 1837, «116 * 1e@agiauey 
1791, “c "9 uy ‘159 a3 ‘999 “ “ 945 ~* y 
W792,“ 41 “ “178 1888, = * 308 « “499 

; 1793, “75 «“ jeg ieso, «93 = ae 

1794. «60 a ito” 1840, $1 98 “ 4393 © 
1795, ~< 88 1828, 26 fo” A is nig « «13 

eigey,. tt 43 “ “184  1841,Mar.ch.22 1853 ‘ 38 
u 114 ~—-:1829, ~~ **:159 “Dec. “11 “ “9990 
1798 “«  g4 it “ 999 “ chapter 163 ie “ 344 wei 
ae tol) 1g80, 185 “ “216 “ “ 3r4 
agen 79, 1891, = Al “ ‘© 959 “  3y5R 
1800, ce 67 (lie “« 309 “ ‘ 962 ins ce 412 ; er 
1804, co TOR “ “ 37] “ “© 303 1854, “ 230 the 
1807, ‘© 140 “ “315 “ “315 1856, “ 140 














The two following sections to be inserted in their proper places : 





Where, in a bill of interpleader, some of the defendants are non-residents, and 
non-residents fail to answer. the Court may order the answers filed by the other de 
ants, to be taken as the answers of such non-resident defendants, or may as to such 
defendants issue an ex-parte commission to take testimony; Provided, notice of the 
substance and objects of the bill and answers be given, as in other cases of non-resi~ , 


dents. This to apply to one or more defendants. 
pply 5 te ys a,” 


Where an infant defendant is returnedg the clerk may issue a commission to 


discreet person, to assign a guardian for and take the answer of such infant. we 
ae , 
» ' } 
<% “ 
y ae 7 


; A ee 
















hod PO: RT 





| COMMITTEE ON THE WDONOGH BEQUEST, — 
EN ORDINAN OE 


Agents of the Estate of John MWeDonogh 


va 











AND 
Trustees of the MeDonooh Institute. 
it 
a ALSO 
t, 
PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS 
RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE 
JOHN McDONOGH. 
é ____ 
i 
|| BALTIMORE: 
PRINTED BY GEORGE W. BOWEN & CO. 
' ) Corner of North and Baltimore Streets. 
Bi 1858. 











RARPORT 
OF THT 


COMMITTEE ON THE WDONOGH BEQUEST, 


WITH 


AN ORDINANCE 


KOR THE APPOINTMENT OF 


Agents of the estat of John stlcHonogh 


AND 


Trustees of the MeDonogh Institute, 


ALSO 


PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS 


RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE 
JOHN McDONOGH. 


BALTIMORE: 


SN in ae BY GEORGE W. BOWEN & CO. 
er of North and Baltimore Streets. 


1858. 






* 2) 20) ee ‘ 
Se 





, ao 


ped at copay 


: ; . 
ie? ye ‘ bine A 
‘ 





| Gad Ne OW 7A GP 


‘The Supreme Court of Louisiana having decided all contro- 
versies as to the division of the McDonogh ‘estate, and ratified 
the partition of the property between New Orleans and Balti- 
more, made in May, 1857, by the Honorable Theodore G. Hunt, 
on the part of New Orleans,.and Mr. Brantz Mayer on -the part _ 
of Baltimore, our city now enters on the full possession of its 
share of this large bequest, and further legislation is required 
to control the management of the property, and the destination 
of the fund that will accrue to Baltimore, if it shall be sold. 

Much misapprehension has existed in regard to the amount 
of property actually left by Mr. McDonogh. ' Exaggerated ideas 
have prevailed as to its value, as well as to its supposed depre- 
ciation. The joint committee of the Councils considered it their 
duty to examine the large mass of papers and accounts possessed 
by this city relative to the estate, and they deem it due to their 
constituents to state the result of their investigation. By this 
means they hope the Councils and the public will not only ob- 
tain exact information as to the character and value of the pre- 
perty, but will cordially assent to such a destination of the fund 
as may effectually carry out the beneficent scheme of Mr. Mc- 
Donogh—stripped as it is by the. courts, of its eumbrous ma- 
chinery. 

Mr. McDonogh died in the fall of 1850, when his estate was 
immediately taken into the hands of five of his testamentary ex- 
ecutors. It was administered by them until April, 1855, when 


4 


it passed into the control of the commissioners and agents of 
New Orleans and Baltimore, appointed under ordinances of 
those cities. During the period of administration by the exe- 
cutors, most of the debts of the estate were paid, and a large 
share of the litigation occurred—especially, the important suit 
brought by Mr. McDonogh’s heirs at law, who sought to over- 
throw the will entirely—and the almost equally important one 
of the States of Louisiana and Maryland, which was intended 
to divest the interests of the cities in favor of those States. Mr. 
McDonogh, so far from being ont of debt at the time of his 
death, appears by the accounts to have owed $121,720. This 
sum, together with the commissions of the executors, counsel 
fees, costs of litigation, taxes, repairs, maintenance of negroes, 
&c., &c., in the five years of the executors’ administration, ab- 
sorbed a large portion of the cash and income of the estate. 

At the time when the transfer of the estate took place, from 
the testamentary executors to the commissioners and agents of © 
the two cities, the latter received from the former :— 


TG CAS... 00c0k =. oe pp cand eapadeee hese tenes as a neee - $59,112 53 
Orleans Theatre property asia value)... 16,762 00 
Ten years of 81 negroes (estimated value)..... 20,000 00 
Real estate, per inventory of 1851............... 1,783,374 58 
Bills receivable and book debts collectable..... 50,000 00 








$1,929,249 11 


The bulk of the property, it will thus be seen, consisted of 
real estate, valued in 1851 at $1,783,374. In the course of 
1856, the commissioners and agents of New Orleans and Balti- 
more, on a careful examination of his papers, discovered that 
Mr. McDonogh died possessed of property in two more parishes 
than had been comprised in the inventory of 1851, to wit:—of 
$303,000 worth of real estate in the parish of St. James and 
$500 worth in the parish of St. Charles. This sum, $303,500, 
added to the previous inventory of $1,783,374, (without a new 
pi lig made a total valuation of the real property 
$2,086,8 

This monn of course, continues undisposed of in any way, 
except that the city of New Orleans expropriated by law $40, 


Pa 


5 


000 worth for a public park, and $7,200 worth for opening 
streets; one-half of which amounts, with six per cent. interest, 
New Orleans is accountable to Baltinore for, upon the final 
liquidation of accounts. 

The reports of the agents and commissioners of Baltimore, 
with their accompanying documents, have all been passed upon 
by the Councils of 1855, 56 and 57, and the undersigned take 
pleasure in stating that the accounts of our city’s agents and 
their colleagues of New Orleans, have been in all respects sys- 
tematic, and accompanied with the fullest explanation and 
vouchers for their disbursements. These vouchers are deposited 
in the office of our City Register. 

The property, as left by Mr. McDonogh at the time of his 
death, was in an extremely dilapidated condition, and all the 
administrations of the estate have necessarily been obliged to 
expend considerable sums in repairs, in order to keep it tenant- 
ed; yet, it is an evidence of discreet and judicious management, 
that the income of the estate has been nearly doubled since the 
testator’s death. 

In the spring of 1857—the time having arrived, under the 
laws of Louisiana, when an estate owned jointly could be parti- 
tioned between the proprietors—the city of New Orleans filed a 
bill against the city of Baltimore to effect such a division. It 
was deemed best, by counsel, that a judicial partition should be 
made, so that all legal questions as to the absolute right to di- 
vide; as to the titles of property; and as to the nature and 
value of the particular legacies bequeathed by Mr. McDonogh 
to the two cities—to the American Colonization Society, and to 
the Society for the Relief of Destitute Orphan Boys—might be 
definitely settled by a final decree of the highest tribunal in 
Louisiana. In May, 1857, the experts appointed by the Fifth 
District Court of New Orleans to make a partition, filed their 
report, (a long and minute account of this estate and its divi- 
sion) which will be found printed at page 523 of the appendix 
to the proceedings of our last Council. This report was very 
soon ratified by the judge of the Fifth District Court; and, on 
an appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, after full and 
elaborate argument, it has been entirely confirmed. 

From this document it appears that the real estate of Mr. Mc- 


6 


Donogh was considerably over-valued by the appraisers in 1851, 
under the executors of the will. In 1857, the experts, prior to 
partition, called to their aid a number of persons skilled in the 
valuation of real property in New Orleans and in the State of 
Louisiana,. and, after consultation, affixed new valuations to 
each piece of property, as will be seen in the inventories accom- 
panying their report. 


The appraisement of the property in the city of New Orleans 
and in the parishes, which the experts have apportioned between 





MRS CILIES 15. sehr fe acess. cos +0 cages eoeneiian ett en $1,408,880 

Value of what the experts have not apportioned, for 
the reasons stated in their report.............. ss aoe 56,800 
ph, aE tt ch RG) vevevttsees $1,465,880 


From this, we have the following difference between the ap- 
praisements a 1851, (with the added parishes in 1856) and the 
appraisement of 1857: re 





Fitstiappraisoment .....5..0. 7a sna $2,086,874 
Second appraisement ..............cceeecseeeeseeapeeeeennens 1,465,880 
aitieren ce 0.03.0. OR ets ae $620,994 


Thus, it appears that the original value of the estate as ap- 
praised, (which was frequently exaggerated by common report 
to be $5,000,000) never reached more—for its real property— 
than $2,086,874; and that this over estimate has been reduced _ 
by the second valuation by $620,000. 

Accordingly, the sum. of $1,465,880 is properly to be taken 
as a just present valuation of the estate, forming the basis of 
the Council’s future calculation and action. 

It is understood that the estate is likely to be hereafter entirely 
free from litigation, as it is believed that no actions are now 
pending against it. The only outstanding liabilities are for 
$100,000, on a judgment under a will lately produced by one 
Francis Pena, of which $24,000 have been paid in cash, and the 
two legacies, under the will to the American Colonization So- 
ciety, and the Society for the Relief of Destitute Orphan Boys, 
on account of which about $25,000 have been already paid. 


7 


Two matters only remain, for our consideration—first, the 
future course of Baltimore in regard to the management of this 
property, and secondly, the destination of the fund if we resolve 
to sell the real estate. 

In regard to the first, the committee are decidedly of opinion 
that it should be economically administered, until a sale can be 
effected at the earliest moment without a sacrifice of our city’s 
interests. The share selected for Baltimore was doubtless judi- 
ciously chosen, and is productive of sufficient income to pay 
taxes, repairs, costs of administration, and perhaps to leave a 
small revenue for the city; but Baltimore should not undertake 
to build, improve, lease, and become an extensive property holder 
in another and a distant State. These are purposes foreign to 
our corporation, and cannot be prudently carried on by any civic 
body.. Accordingly, the committee cannot doubt that it is their 
unquestionable duty to recommedd the realization of ovr share 
of this estate, in money, as the best means of deriving an ad- 
vantage from the testator’s bequest, and’ of carrying out his 
philanthrophic purposes. The communication from Mr. Brantz 
Mayer, printed at page of our journal, points ont the ne- 
cessary legislation. 

The committee is equally clear as to the destination of the’ 
fund which may be realized by a judicious sale. The late mes- 
sage of his honor the Mayor of Baltimore indicates and elo- 
quently enforces the educational designs of our benefactor, and 
your committee would consider the city dishonored, were it not, 
with its first legislation, to devote this fund, separate and apart 
from all the city’s moneys, to popular instruction. When our 
Mayor and City Council accepted the bequest, at Mr. McDonogh’s 
death, they solemnly pledged themselves ‘‘to abide by and 
comply with his wishes and directions.’ 

In order to effectuate this resolution and redeem this siete, 
your committee beg leave respectfully to recommend the passage 
of the ordinance accompanying this report. 

That ordinance embraces the temporary administration of the 
estate, its'sale, the disposal of the funds, the care of the negroes, 
and the formation of a permanent board for the investment of 
the proceeds of the real property. It also provides for the es- 
tablishment by the same board of trustees of an institution, in 





He en ferts Page? te he eabdenler tr’, Bee 


8 












accordance with the recommendation of his. 

for the maintenance and education of —— g 

as directed by the will of the late John McDonogh 
All of which is respectfully submitted. — waved Per 


; Cuarues H, CLARK, 
Joun J. Stayton, 
JosHUA Drvyven, r 
Joun T. ‘Forp, 


A. B. Gorpoy, 
Joun R. Ketso, f 
SamueL Kirk, — th hel: 
J. ‘Bz SRIDBNSTRICKHR, | iw 


q 
Ss 
: 
; wht 
' 
: : 
ron 
é } ify 
Se fase 
re 
r 
oi 
- 
patie : i 
14) , 
‘¥ 
‘ ne 
rr! 7 
inh ae 
A . 
fre > wags Tie of 
« : 
he i ' ' * ¥ 
. ‘ > ‘ * 4 y ew 
as eed y it Nis 4 4 ‘ a ith me 


om me ed cele teriee ota cd ITN 


ORDINANCE. 





An ordinance for the appointment of agents to represent the city of Baltimore in the 
receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of Baltimore’s interest in the estate of 
the late John McDonogh, of Louisiana, deceased; and for the appointment of a 
Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute. 


Section 1. Be it enacted and ordained by the Mayor and City 
Council of Baltimore, That Brantz Mayer, William 8. Peterkin 
and Thomas L. Emory be and they are hereby appointed agents 
of the city of Baltimore for the receipt, administration, sale and 
liquidation of the portion of the estate of the late John Me- 
Donogh, of Louisiana, deceased, to which Baltimore is entitled 
by virtue of said McDonogh’s will, and by virtue of the decree 
for partition of said McDonogh’s estate between the cities of 
New Orleans and Baltimore, rendered by the Fifth District 
Court of New Orleans, and confirmed by the Supreme Court of 
Louisiana ; but before entering upon the duties of their office, 
each of the said agents shall give bond, with security, in the 
sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, to the Mayor and City 
Council of Baltimore, for the faithful discharge of the duties 
hereinafter described and defined—said bonds to be approved by 
the Mayor, Comptroller and the Presidents of the two branches 
of the City Council, and to be deposited with the Comptroller 
of the city of Baltimore. 

Section 2. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor 
and City Council of Baltimore, That the powers and duties of 
said agents shall be the following, to wit:— 

2 


mm : 


Ist. The said agents are hereby directed and empowered to 
receive from the agents and commissioners of the cities of New 
Orleans and Baltimore, now jointly administering the estate of 
the said McDonogh, deceased, by virtue of ordinances passed 
by the said cities, all the portion or portions of said John Me- 
Donogh’s estate, real and personal, movable and immovable, to 
which the said city of Baltimore is entitled under said MeDon- 
ogh’s will, and by virtue of the decree for partition heretofore 
referred to. They are authorized and empowered to give receipts 
and acquittances for the same to the said board of agents and 
commissioners, and if necessary, to the city of New Orleans; 
and to make all settlements in liquidation of accounts with said 
city of New Orleans, for taxes, expropriated property and their 
several interests in said McDonogh’s estate. 

2nd. The said agents are hereby further directed and em- 
powered, after the receipt by them of the city of Baltimore’s 
share of said McDonogh’s estate as aforesaid, together with all 
the books, papers, plats and evidences of title requisite for the 
separate administration of the property—to do and perform all 
necessary acts for the care and management of the same, as 
fully and entirely as if the property were under the immediate 
control, in this city, of the Mayor and City Council of Balti- 
more ; taey are directed to lease and repair property, collect 
rents, pay taxes, claims, judgments, costs of administration and 
to settle with and make payment or satisfaction to the American 
Colonization Society, and the Society for the Relief of Destitute 
Orphan Boys, (beneficiaries under said McDonogh’s will) ac- 
cording to the principles settled by the Supreme Court of Louis- 
iana in its confirmation of the decree for the partition of the 
McDonogh estate; and to perform all such other administrative 
acts as shall be needful for the guardianship and economical 
management of the property until it is sold. 

3d. The'said agents are hereby further directed aud empow- 
ered to advertise for sale and to sell at public sale, if advisable, ' 
and if not deemed by them advisable, then to sell at private sale, 
at the earliest favorable period, and on such terms as to credit and 
purchase money as in their judgment shall be most advantageous 
for the interest of the city of Baltimore, all and every part of 
the real and personal estate, movable and immovable property, 


ii 


belonging to said city of Baltimore, under and by virtue of the 
will of the said John MeDonogh, and of the decree of partition 
aforesaid, recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of said 
State. Express and special powers are hereby given to and 
vested in said agents, appointed by this ordinance, to effect such 
sales of said real aH personal, movable and immovable pro- 
perty, and, in the name of and for the city of Baltimore, to 
give full and complete titles to the purchaser or purchasers, ac- 
cording to, and in compliance with, the terms of sale, so as, 
under the laws of Louisiana, to convey to said purchaser or 
purchasers, the title of the said city of Baltimore in each and 
every part of said property sold by the said agents. All obliga- 
tions, bonds, mortgages, notes, guaranties or securities from said 
purchaser or purchasers, in said sales, shall be given to the 
agents and received by them in their capacity as agents for the 
city of Baltimore under this ordinance. 

4th. The said agents are hereby directed, and it shall be their 
duty to remit to the Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Edu- 
cational Fund and Institute, created by the fourth section of this 
ordinance, all proceeds of said sales, in cash, notes, bonds, 
- mortgages or other securities, and all moneys collected:by them, 
as soon as received, and to take receipts therefor from said board 
of trustees;. and semi-annually, during their continuance in 
office, to send asworn report of their action under this ordinance, 
and of their financial accounts, to the Mayor and City Council 
of Baltimore; and, as soon as practicable, to liquidate the 
whole of said: city’s interest in said McDonogh’s estate. 

5th. The said agents are hereby directed and empowered, in 
connection with the city of New Orleans, or, with such agents 
as said city may authorize to act for it, to provide for the slaves 
belonging to said John McDonogh’s estate, according to the 
designs of his will, either by transporting them, or a portion of 
them, as soon as practicable, to one of the colonies of free 
negroes in Africa, or by their liberation, or the liberation of 
portions of them, from servitude. Tor this purpose, the agents 
are hereby authorized to apply such sums of money as will be 
‘sufficient, with similar co-operation by the city of New Orleans, 
to fulfil in spirit the humane purposes of the late John McDon- 
ogh, in regard to his slaves, 


12 


Section 3. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor 
and City Council of Baltimore, That the agents of the city of 
Baltimore, in compensation for their services, travelling ex- 
penses, salary of a clerk, and all other extras in discharge of 
their trust and duties under this ordinance, be and they are 
hereby authorized to receive a compensation of four per cent. on 
the amount received from the sales of tle city of Baltimore’s 
share in the estate of John McDonogh; the said four per cent. 
to be divided as follows:—one and one-half of one per cent. to 
Brantz Mayer, one and one-half of one per cent. to William 8. 
Peterkin, and one per cent. to Thomas L. Emory. 

Section 4. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor 
and City Council of Baltimore, That, whereas, it is considered 
an object of primary obligation to keep the legacy of the late 
John McDonogh separate and distinct from the general funds of 
the city of Baltimore so that while it accomplishes the leading 
object of the testator, it may stand as a monument of his liber- 
ality and public spirit—a board of trustees consisting of twenty 
persons, of good standing, who shall be citizens of Baltimore, 
shall be appointed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 
as other city officers are appointed—one to be taken from each 
ward of the city—who shall annually appoint a president from 
their own body, and who are hereby constituted a board for the 
receipt, safe keeping and investment of the funds and proceeds 
of sale which shall be received from the agents of the city of 
Baltimore, according to the fourth clause of the second section 
of this ordinance. The said board shall be styled ‘‘ The Board 
of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute,” 
the income of which fund shall be forever sacredly devoted to 
the purposes of education. 

Section 5. Be it further enacted and ordained by the Mayor 
and City Council of Baltimore, That the members of this board 
shall be appointed to serve for six years; provided, however, 
that of the members of the board first appointed under the pro- 
visions of this ordinance, one-half to be designated by the 
Mayor, shall be appointed for but three years, so that the term 
of one-half of the members of the board shall expire alternately 
every three years; but the members of the board of trustees may 
be removed at any time by the Mayor and City Council of Balti- 


15 


more for mal-administration of their ofticial duties; and on such 
removal, or on the death, resignation or removal from the city of 
Baltimore of said trustees, or of any of them, the Mayor shall 
proceed, at once, to the appointment of a successor or successors 
to such removed, deceased or resigned trustee or trustees. 

Section 6. And be it further enacted and ordained, ‘hat it 
shall be the duty of the trustees of the McDonogh educational 
fund and institute, to establish within the corporate limits of 
the city of Baltimore, or adjacent thereto, an institution for the 
maintenance and education of poor boys, to be styled the ‘‘ Mc- 
Donogh Institute,’’ said institute to be under the control and 
direction of said board of trustees, 

Section 7. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the 
proceeds of all sales of property, or rents of property, until the 
same shall be disposed of, growing out of, or in any way apper- 
taining to the estate of the late John McDonogh, shall be in- 
vested in the public securities of the city of Baltimore or the 
State of Maryland, for the purposes of this trust, and on no 
condition shall any part of the principal of the same be disposed 
of or alienated for any purpose whatever. 

Section 8. And be it further enacted and ordained, That said 
institute shall be free from all sectarian influence. 

Section 9. And be it further enacted and ordained, That 
whenever the funds arising from the proceeds of the sales of the 
property now held by the city of Baltimore in the McDonogh 
estate, shall, in the judgment of the trustees of the McDonogh 
educational fund and institute, be sufficient, they shall proceed 
to procure a site for the erection of buildings suitable to the ob- 
jects and purposes of said trust, making such provision as shall 
accord with the character and probable magnitude of the be- 
quest. 

Section 10. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the 
intention of the Mayor and City Council being to preserve 
intact the principal of the legacy of the said John Mc- 
Donogh to an extent of five hundred thousand dollars, should 
so much be realized, in order that the same may stand as a per- 
petual memorial of the noble legacy bequeathed to the city of 
Baltimore, said board of trustees shall not be limited as to time 
in the securing of a site and erection of suitable buildings, but 


14 


shall appropriate only the accruing interest upon said fund, un- 
less the same shall exceed five hundred thousand dollars, when. 
the surplus, or such part thereof as may be necessary may be 
appropriated towards said object. : 

Section 11. And be it further enacted and ordained, That the 
architectural design of said buildings shall be plain and sub- 
stantial, and constructed with the strictest eye to use and 
economy. 

Section 12. And be it further enacted and ordained, That 

said institute, in its educational plan, shall comprise a prepara- 
tory and collegiate department, and no boy shall be received in 
said institute under the age of eight years. 

Section 13. And-be it further enacted and ordained, That all 
appointments to said institute shall be. made by the board of 
trustees, and that every ward of the city of Baltimore shall be 
entitled to an equal share in the benefits of said institute; pro- 
vided, that should the quota of pupils to which any ward is en- 
titled not be filled, by want of suitable applicants from said 
ward for the space of three months, then the board of trustees 
may fill the said vacancy or vacancies by the appointment of 
applicants from the city at large 

Section 14. And be it fur thik ain and ordained, That all 
boys received into said institute shall, from and after the period 
of entrance, be supported and maintained at the exclusive cost 
of said institute. 

Section 15. And be it further enacted and ordained, That 
said trustees shall have power to adopt and establish all needful 
plans and regulations connected with the establishment and 
working of said institute for the maintenance and education of 
poor boys, not inconsistent ‘with the general provisions of this 
ordinance, and to do such other acts as may be necessary to 
bring the same into practical operation, at such time as may be 
found convenient and advantageous to the interests of the city. 

Section 16. And be it further enacted and ordained, That no 
trustee appointed under this ordinance shall be in any manner 
connected with or concerned in any contract for the building 
or maintenance of said institute; nor shall any member of the 
board, either directly or indirectly, receive any compensation for 
his services, 


15 


Section 17, And be it further enacted aud ordained, That all - 
ordinances or parts of ordinances which may be inconsistent 
with the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby 


repealed. 
JNO. T. FORD, 
President of the First Branch. 


JNO. B. SEIDENSTRICKER, 
President of the Second Branch. 


Approved May 28, 1858. 
THO: SWANN, Mayor. 


16 


PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS 


RELATIVE TO THE REMOVAL OF THE REMAINS OF THE LATE 
JOHN McDONOGH. 


Whereas, in the ‘‘ metmorandaof instructions’’ left with his will 
by the late John McDonogh, he desired that his remains might 
be deposited in a burial place of the city of Baltimore, together 
with the remains of his parents, and that a suitable vault be 
erected for their reception; and whereas, the wishes of the de- 
ceased in this respect, have not yet been complied with; 

Therefore, be it resolved by the Mayor and City Council of 
Baltimore, That the agents of said city, appointed by ‘‘an 
ordinance for the appointment of agents to represent the city of 
Baltimore in the receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of 
Baltimore’s interest in the estate of the late John McDonogh, 
&c. &c.,’’ be and they are hereby authorized to unite with the 
authorities or agents of the city of New Orleans, in removing 
the remains of said John McDonogh to Baltimore, and in ful- 
filling, as far as practicable, the wishes so earnestly expressed 
by him in the memoranda aforesaid. 

Be it further resolved, That should the city of New Orleans 
decline uniting in the costs of removal and erection of a tomb, 
but should not object to the accomplishment of Mr. MeDonogh’s 
desires by the city of Baltimore, then the agents of Baltimore 
are hereby empowered to perform the duty, alone, in behalf of 
the city they represent; and are authorized to expend all neces- 
sary sums of money—not to exceed two thousand dollars—out of 
the city of Baltimore’s share of the McDonogh estate, for said 
removal of remains, and for the erection of a suitable tomb and 
memorial of the deceased. 


Approved June 9, 1858. 
THO: SWANN, Mayor. 








SECOND REPORT 


| 
i. 
\ 


| Brantz Mayer, Win. S. Peterkin & Thos. L. Emory, 


| 
i] 
' 


AGENTS OF BALTIMORE 


FOR THE 


H LIQUIDATION OF THE CITY'S INTEREST [N THE 
ESTATE OF JOHN McDONOGH, Dro’p., 


’ 
PRESENTED TO THE Cg 


| | MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BATIMORE 


it 
ON THE 5rx OF JUNE, 1860; 


A LETTER FROM THE AGENTS, 


REPORTING THE REMOVAL OF MR. McDONOGH’S 
4 REMAINS TO BALTIMORE, 


BALTIMORE: 
BULL & TUTTLE. 
_ 1860. 








BES RG ESE SP 





SECOND REPORT 


OF 


Brantz Mayer, Wm. S. Peterkin & Thos. L. Emory, 


AGENTS OF BALTIMORE 


FOR THE 


LIQUIDATION OF THE CITY’S INTEREST IN THE 
ESTATE OF JOHN McDONOGH, Dec’p., 


PRESENTED TO THE 


MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BATIMORE 


ON THE 5rx OF JUNE, 1860; 
A LETTER FROM THE AGENTS, 


REPORTING THE REMOVAL OF MR. McDONOGH’S 
REMAINS TO BALTIMORE. 





BALTIMORE: 
BULL & TUTTLE. 
1860. 








Wiad 
eae 
/ 
‘ 
’ 


a hvq, 




















n { 
f j { i j 
- v 
re { 
- 
ie 
} > ‘ 
~ 
t 
’ 2 ay = “_ H 
e Ce a) Pleas 
‘ \ 4 j 
* 
Thi». 
’ 
( 
‘ : i _ 
} i 
2 
y 
hy hy . 
1 S / 
a, 
‘ 
A ” 
‘ 
Wy 
i 
i 
i R 2 
Te 
f He - 
. 4 / 
| 
t 
& 
7 
* 
ey 
2 ge 


ied 


ee ha tek i ' eh 1 TRO, 


f cd pee vy oad! ley yee e } Cee 
th es r Bas a ia i mo) (Le 





THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 


LETTER 


FROM THE 


HON. THOMAS SWANN, 


MAYOR OF BALTIMORE, 


TRANSMITTING A REPORT AND COMMUNICATION 
FROM THE CITY’S AGENTS FOR THE 
McDONOGH ESTATE. 


Mayor’s Office, 
Baltimore, June 5, 1860. 
To the Honorable, the members of the , 
First and Second Branches of the City Council: 
GENTLEMEN— 


I have the honor to transmit herewith a communication from 
Brantz Mayer and Wm. 8. Peterkin, Esqs., in relation to the 
remains of the late John McDonogh, of New Orleans, together 
with the Report of the Agents of the City of Baltimore in the 
McDonogh Estate, and the accounts, vouchers and copies of 
deeds of sale and mortgage. 


With great respect, 
Your obedient servant, 


Tuos. Swann, Mayor. 


6 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


The notes maturing to May 5th, inst., have all been met with 
the exception of $1,586 14, a portion of which are in the hands 
of Messrs. Mott & Fraser, attornies, for collection, and the resi- 
due will also be placed for immediate collection by suit, if not 
promptly met. A list of the notes unpaid marked N, is sub- 
mitted with this report. 


The conditions of purchase, for a small part of the property 
sold last year, not having been complied with by the purchas- 
ers, we have availed of the proper period this season to resell, at 
public auction, such portion of this property as we considered 
it judicious to dispose of. 


Of the rural property belonging to the city of Baltimore, we 
have sold to Colonel Wm. L. Wynn, of Assumption, one half, 
as nearly as it could be divided, of a large tract of land in the 
parish of Ibberville, containing, according to the original 
survey, two thousand six hundred and forty acres, at fifty dol- 
lars per acre, payable one fifth in cash, the balance in one, two, 
three and four years, with interest at the rate of six per cent. 
per annum, on the credit payments; subject to resurvey and 
division, by a surveyor to be mutually agreed on, at the joint 
expense of buyer and seller. Under this arrangement, the 
nomination of a surveyor was submitted to W. J. MeCulloh, 
Esq., formerly of Baltimore, Surveyor General of Louisiana, 
and the work assigned by him to Mr. 8. C. Hepburn, a gentle- 
man of high standing in his profession, and one whom we 
could rely, would do justice to both parties. The resurvey, de- 
ducting reservation for roads, calls for 1,316 31-100 acres, and 
upon this our basis for settlement has been made. Reservation 
for roads 13 12-100 acres. 


This sale results to Baltimore, in the handsome sum of 
$73,713 30-100 including interest, and one half the tract is still 
unsold; whereas the entire tract was taken by Baltimore in 
partition at the valuation of $75,000. The property in ques- 
tion is situated one hundred miles above New Orleans, on the 
right bank, and some four miles back from the Mississippi 
river—the soil is good and it is heavily timbered, its value 
being well indicated by the rate of sale, which is as high, taking 
into consideration the extent of tract, and distance from navi- 
gation, as any unimproved lands, similarly situated, have as 
yet realized. The remaining half is also valuable for the 
quality of its soil and timber, although its distance from the 
river exceeds that of the tract sold by the length of its front 
line, along which a road for the use of the portion unsold has 
been reserved. 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. bg 


We consider this sale as a judicious one, as it has been effect- 
ed directly by ourselves, without the expense of auctioneer’s 
fees or property agents’ commission, and at a favorable rate— 
interest is also now accruing to Baltimore and future taxes on 
the property saved. We have also sold at private sale in addi- 
tion to this property, an isolated tract of 80 60-100 acres, situa- 
ted in the midst of the adjoining estate of Cyprian Ricard, at 
fifty dollars per acre. This last tract is also in Ibberville, and 
the purchaser is Doctor P. R. Stone, of that parish. 


The property now remaining to Baltimore, consists of about 
one half the large and valuable tract in the parish of Ibber- 
ville, containing by resurvey 1,311 27-100 acres; five small 
tracts, principally low, swampy lands, in the same parish, and 
in the neighborhood of the above, containing together by origi- 
nal survey, about 800 acres, and a large body of land in the 
parish of St. James, some fifty miles above the city, and con- 
taining about 10,000 acres. This large tract is of low swamp 
land, probably of no great value. 


We consider it injudicious at this moment to force sales of 
this remaining property, but would recommend a disposition of 
it whenever a suitable offer presents. 


Of the colored people hired with the Allard Place until the 
31st October, 1860, we have to report since our last communi- 
eation, the death of Johnson, an aged man, and nearly blind, 
who expired on the 17th March last; and there are now attach- 
ed to this place fifteen of various ages, a list of which, marked 
M, we beg to annex hereto. Such portion of these as are proper 
for colonization, can be delivered over to the American Coloni- 
zation Society, or to their attorney here, upon the expiration of 
their term of service, for transmission to Liberia, in accordance 
with the will of Mr. McDonogh. The remaining slaves whom 
we have considered it improper to send to Liberia, are fully and 
particularly named in our last report of May 30, 1859. 


The suit of the city of New Orleans against the city of Balti- 
more for a claim of $50,000 with interest, since June Ist, 1854, 
having been determined against Baltimore in the lower court, 
has been carried by appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, 
and was argued by our counsel in that court, on Tuesday last, 
the first day of May, but no decision has yet been rendered. 


You have already been advised of the appearance of an 
alleged codicil to the will of Mr. McDonogh, bequeathing 


8 ' REPORT OB THE AGENTS 


$300,000 to a certain Moses Fox, claiming to be a nephew of 
the testator, and attested by Cass, a flat-boatman. This docu- 
ment we have no hesitation in believing entirely invalid, and 
although the defence of the case requires care and attention, we 
have no doubt whatever of our success. In the citation of the 
agents of Baltimore, in this case, it was erroneously stated that 
the codicil had been admitted to probate in the Second District 
Court, which we find is not the case; but a commission for the 
examination of testimony in Illinois has been taken out by the 
plaintiff, to sustain the credibility of the witness Cass, whilst 
all necessary measures have been adopted, by our counsel for 
the protection of the interests of Baltimore. This action of the 
claimant will serve to delay proceedings in the case, which will 
not be reached until after the summer term of court. We have 
associated Robert Mott, Usq.,a lawyer of experience and ability, 
with Mr. Roselius, in these suits. ; 


On the 16th of April, ult., a communication was received 
from John W. Randolph, Esq., President of the Board of Trus- 
tees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and Institute, dated 
Baltimore, April 11, 1860, demanding, under a resolution of 
the Board, the assets in the hands of the agents, as provi- 
ded in section No. 4, of an ordinance of the Mayor and City 
Council of Baltimore, approved May 28, 1858, and which it has 
given us pleasure promptly to comply with, by forwarding to 
Mr. Randolph, on the 17th ult., an order for these assets on 
James D. Denegre, Esq., President of the Citizens’ Bank of 
Louisiana, where they are deposited; reserving, however, the 
cash in Bank, and sundry notes to meet a possible judgment 
against Baltimore in the suit of the city of New Orleans, with 
interest and costs since June Ist, 1854, costs of defending the 
suit brought by Moses Fox on the alleged codicil, and any 
other claims against the estate which may hereafter appear. 


* 

This reservation was necessary and unavoidable, as the assets 
of Baltimore, in the hands of her agents, had already been 
attached by the city of New Orleans, and Mr. Thomas Poindex- 
ter, who united with Mr. Peterkin, one of the undersigned, in 
the appeal bond given in the case, for the sum of $100,000, was 
personally assured that an ample fund would be reserved under 
all circumstances to cover that responsibility. 


In conformity with the wish expressed by Mr. MeDonogh in 
his will, that his remains should repose in his native city, we 
have caused them to be placed on board the schooner Mary 
Clinton, destined for Baltimore, in special charge of Captain 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 9 


Ryan, of that vessel, for such honorable reception as may, in 
consideration of the noble charity he has bequeathed our city, 
and in respect to his memory be deemed expedient and proper. 
In making the necessary arrangements for the discharge of this 
solemn duty, we have received the kind aid and co-operation of 
J. B. Walton, Esq., Secretary of the Board of Commissioners 
of the McDonogh School Fund of this city, which we thus take 
occasion to acknowledge. 


We beg to enclose statements of sales, as follow: 


No. 8, of property made in 1859, but not closed until after our 
report of May 30th, of that year; Nos. 9, 10 and 11, of property 
made this year, the proceeds of the three latter appearing to 
the credit of the McDonogh Educational Fund of Baltimore, in 
accordance with the ordinance already referred to, as per exhibit 
of our account with the Board. 


The entire summary of the estate is exhibited in the follow- 
ing accounts current, accompanying this report, viz: 


I.—Embracing all transactions of the agents of the city of 
Baltimore up to April 17, 1860, when a transfer of bills receiv- 
able was made to the McDonogh School Fund of Baltimore, in 
accordance with the ordinance above referred to, and in con- 
formity with instructions from John W. Randolph, Esq., Presi- 
dent of the Board. Supplement I, which is simply a continu- 
ation of our account with Baltimore to this date; K, account 
current with the McDonogh School Fund to same period; L, 
statement of assets on hand to the credit of Baltimore, through 
her agents, as a reserved fund, to meet possible judgments, and 
other liabilities, and assets transferred to the School Fund, the 
aggregate amount of both being $579,715 53-100. 


We respectfully submit this report, with the accompanying 
documents, as a statement of our action to this date. 


We have the honor to remain, 
Gentlemen, 
Your most obedient servants, 


Wm. 8S. Pererrn, 
Tos. L. Emory, 
Brantz Mayer. 


10 


REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


LIST OF DOCUMENTS 


Transmitted herewith, as part of this Report: 


Document I—Agents’ account current with Baltimore to April 


One 


17, 1860. 
[—(2d) supplement to do., to May 7, 1860. 


K—Agents’ account current with the Board of ‘l'rus- 
tees of the McDonogh Educational Fund and 
Institute. 


L—Statement of net assets realized for Baltimore 
from her share of this estate to May 7, 1860. 


M—Statement of slaves hired with Allard Place. 


N—Statement of notes from sales of McDonogh ‘pro- 
perty, part due and unpaid, May 7, 1860. 


No. 8—Statement of bills receivable for portion of 
sales of 28th April and 2d May, 1859. 


No. 9—Statement of cash and bills receivable for 
sales of March 5th, 1860. 


No. 10—Statement of cash and bills receivable for 
sales of May 4, 1860. 


No. 11—Statement of cash and bills receivable for 
sales of May 5, 1860. 


package copies of ten certified deeds of sale and mortgage 


ce 


a3 


of property sold. 


bills and vouchers, for payments to 17th April, 
1860, from No. 1 to No. 26. 


bills and vouchers, for payments subsequent to 
17th April, 1860. 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 11 
State of Lowisiana, City of New Orleans, sct.: 


Be it remembered, that on this ninth day of May, A. D. 
1860, personally appeared before me, a duly authorized Com- 
missioner of deeds of the State of Maryland, Wm. 8. Peterkin 
and Thomas L. Emory, two of the authorized agents of Balti-* 
more, for the receipt, administration, sale and liquidation of 
Baltimore’s share of the McDonogh estate, and being duly 
sworn, made oath, that the facts contained in this report are 
true. 


In testimony whereof, I have hereto set my hand and seal of 
office, on the day and year above written. 


[L. 8.] Watrer Henry, 


Commissioner for Maryland, in New Orleans, Louisiana. 


State of Maryland, City of Baltimore, sct.: 


Be it remembered, that on this fourth day of June, A. D. 
1860, personally appeared before me, a duly authorized Notary 
Public of the State of Maryland, in the city of Baltimore, Brantz 
Mayer, agent of said city for the sale, liquidation, &c., of the 
estate of John McDonogh, deceased, and made oath that the 
facts stated in the preceding report are true. 


In testimony whereof, I hereto set my official seal and sub- 
scribe my name, on the day and year first above written. 


[L. 8. ] Lewis Surron, 


Notary Public. 





Amount carried forward .............00. $1,570 11 


12 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 
‘ DOCUMENT 
Dr. Crry or Baurimore, In Account 
Vouchers | 
To paid Bouny & Theard, Notaries, for 
copies of acts of sale............... , .$119 00 
ey nal Edward Barnett, for same.......... | 87 50 
a a N. Vignie, charges on sales at) 
| BUCHON...0..0.4seeer seneeet cen emg 32 86 
ae oe taxes in parish of Orleans.......+. 94 88 
ee for box, for DAPPTS.)..0%.....:-..0eeeee ) 6 75 
nine paige Hon. H. M. Spofford, arbitration 
fees in settlement of legacies to 
Orphan Boys’ Asylum and Colo- 
nization BOciety.....4 6d. Sieve 250 00 
J ls taxes on property in Carrollton 
for ‘LBGD:: J: fash, bores. ee 37 30 
8 “f Post Office, for box rent............. 4 00 
) a Adams Express Co., carriage to! 
| Baltimore on agents’ report..... L560 
Alle ean New Orleans Insurance Co., for' 
insurance on property............ 49 32 
beta ome Clerk of United States Court, for . 
/ copy of record used by counsel for 
| Baltimore, in suit brought by city 
| of New Orleans,....sjien..vs ase 75 00 
een ee W. J. McCulloh, for services and 
expenses to country parishes for 
reduction of taXe$8.........cesseere0 62 00 
13 4 Mott & Fraser, retaining fee in 
suit city of New Orleans......... 750 00 


OF THR M’DONOGH ESTATE. 13 


[—(Continued. ) 


CURRENT WITH THE AGENTS. Cr. 





By balance per supplement to general account H, 
dated June 12th, 1859, in bills receivable in| 
Citizens’ Bank. 214..& pve. ae $503,471 48 

BY CAB... ... cs stmaeiwewtenn een savesanas 189 58 





$503,661 06 





By cash from Thomas L. Emory, for contingent: 
fond. returned A}... UAe 4 UNOS. sR... 500 00 
By cash for protests and interest on notes laid 
over, collected with amounts of notes from 


YAWETS......eeceeeeeee decors eee ener ee tge eee ee ee terres, Tl 64 
By cash recovered for rent due and unpaid in 

1889.45... 0 A AOR AO eae. Fe add. | 25 50 
By cash from sales of property in 1859, collected! 

since last account was rendered......... $596 00 


By bills receivable for sales of property — | 
in 1859, since collected, statement 





WG: 8... DORE AG, 0it.. MARTA ...4,531 40 
$5,127 40 
Less agents’ commissions........ 9980073 





$4,896 67 


Amount carried forward..:......ccisecseescvees $509,154 87 











14 


Dr. 


Vouchers. 


14 
15 
16 
| 
18 


19 


20 





REPORT OF THE AGENTS 








DOCUMENT 

Account 

To amount brought forward.............sec000. $1,570 11 
[To paid Thomas L. Emory, an agent for Bal- 
timore, on account of his com- 

PATSSTONS, cn scen eer saree 600 00 
13 J. & J. C. Davidson, for portion of 
taxes on their purchase, from Ast 

January, 1859, to day of sale.... 26 90 

bs ‘Taxes in parish of Iberville. ....... loot B12 19 
e Bee newspaper, advertising sundry 

notices to purchasers..............+ 25 00 

“ Picayune newspaper, for same....... 28 00 
< Police Jail expenses on Paul, a slave 
hired with Allard Place, assigned 

to Baltimore.:..i....+ woes 5 edeeniny 6 40 
ms Sheriff and Clerk of Court’s fees in 

suit vs. D. M. Elmore, for rent 6 00 
‘¢ . Adams Express Co., forwarding 
books to Baltimore.......... $2 75 
a Corson & Armstrong, station’y10 00 
& Postage staMps.......s.csaseeseee 1 05 
4 For sundry stationery .......... 5 00 
ds Telegram to B. Mayev.......... 2 25 
S of tom. PE SN 2 25 
i For reeord ‘books :.<.:ss pipreres 3 50 
+ Sundry stationery and postage 3 00 

Cab hire, in releasing slave 

Paul dom Pails. 26 aciza 1 60 

— 31 40 

Amount carried forward.........++s+00 $2,806 00 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 15 


I—(Continued. 


Current I—(Continued.) Cr. 





By amount brought forward.......ccccecseeeee ree eeees $509,154 87 











Amount carried forward........c.ssesccersesese $509,154 87 





16 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 





Dr. AccouNT CURRENT 


To amount brought forward....... ween fo $2,806 00 
The following notes for property purchased, due, 

and unpaid placed with Robert Mott, Esq., 

counsel, for collection, being part of assets 

handed over to the Board of Trustees of the| - 

McDonogh Institute, Baltimore: — 


Henry Kelty, due March 31, 1860........ 29 68 
Nicholas Durn, G ae PRR ee 364 64 
L. Munier, 0 a 4 RR. teste 38 16 
E. Houillion, en ae AS: 445 09 
Nicholas Glasser, ‘‘ April 8, 1860...... 22 26 
Hu Mitchell, a Re se ca de 10 18 


910. 01 





Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational 
Fund and Institute, for amount of notes for, 
sales of property in 1859, not yet due, handed 
over to the Board, as provided in section 4 of 
an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council 
of Baltimore, approved May 28, 1858, amount- 
TNE LO ss00... dente cteens RRM rks cos ane 442,524 02 
Less notes, particularized below, re 
tained to meet possible judgments, 
costs of suits, and other expenses, 18,715 20) 423,808 82 





Amount carried forward... ru. .s«+.asevecumeenman: ane $427,524 83 








OF THE M DONOGH ESTATE. 17 





I.—(Continued. ) 
ConTINUED, Cr. 
By aggount, brought forwards......+..ayasaseomsardudan | $509,154 87 


Amount carried forward...............5. vahaea | $509,154 87 





Dr. 


REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


DOCUMENT 


To amoune ‘brought forwards sy... 00. .ss0s teem 
To error overcredited in the following bills receiv- 
able, for sales of property in 1859: 

G, Lobrane @-Obe 3). Nuk ays anes stow eeee 40 


To balance returned by agents, and deposited in 

Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, to cover expense 

of possible judgments, costs of suits, and any 

other expenses of the estate, occurring, viz: | 

KORN... cage ct take eeMieE ouny termes eee sae $62,914 14 
Bills receivable, viz: 

Massey, Huston & Co., due March 





6, 1860, sAicctegneee« ahewanss ete s ees a 
J. & P. BO Brien, same date... 7,056 00 
Jas. Rainey and others, Ce oe 
T. R. Brady & Oo., EO ees Oy ee 
Geo. Patterson, BE igs, ye 
EK. V. Fassman, aglialin be 909 44 








Account CURRENT 


$427,524 83 


70 


81,629 34 
$509,154 87 





OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 19 


I. 
I. ConTINUED. Cr. 
By amount, brought forward........ssenssiennraespoeeee $509,154 87 








$509,154 87 


New Orleans, April 17th, 1860. 
Wo. S. Pererxin, 
Tos. L. Emory, 
Baltimore, 21st May, 1860. Brantz Mayer, 


20 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


[SUPPLEMENT TO 
Dr. Crry or Banrmorn, IN Account 





= ee ee 
Vouchers, } 


To cash paid as follows: | 

'To C. T. White, clerk of 2d District Court, 
for transcript of appeal in the Supreme 
Court, in suit of City of New Orleans......, 310 16 

To Wm. Bloomfield, Jr., printing briefs....; 9 25 

To C. Roselius, Esq., argument in _ 

_ Supreme Court, in suit of City of 

| NewADrioane') 2785.00.28 $1,000, 


| 2,600 00 





21 


22 
23 








To Mott & Fraser, their bill for same service) 2,500 00 
To Mott & Fraser, services arranging sale 
| of Ibberville property, and professional 
advice in regard to same ...,.. ..0....s.s0e00s 100 00 

26 |To Thomas L. Emory, for contingent funds 
to meet taxes yet unpaid, We................- | 800 00 
To balance of assets as follows: in Citizens’ 
Bank ot Louisiana: 








‘Cash on ROME, ey. do $61,519 75 
[Bills receivable......... ..cccceens 18,715 20/$80,234 95 


1$86,454 35 


t \ 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATR. 


DOCUMENT I.] 


CURRENT WITH THE AGENTS. 


21 


Cr. 











By balance of account I, dated April 
7 Casiiiemen seated sorpserainar sc spa 62,914 14 
Bille TEVENVAWIE,:. 2... ;ccsenerseeteea 18,715 20 


—_—_: 





By amount reserved from collections since April 
17, 1860, to meet additional commission al- 
lowed Thomas L. Emory, per act of City 
Council of Baltimore, subject to fulfilment of 
conditions contained therein ...........sseceeseees 

By amount received from T, L. Emory for com- 
missions advanced him per account I, subse- 
quently deducted from sales of property......... 

By also for excess of commissions paid him in 
pales of Sti Maven, LS60..... 2... .+.scnnneheaenceemee 


$81,629 34 


4,199 37 


600 00 
25 64 


$86,454 35 





Wm. 8. Pererxry, 
New Orleans, May 7, 1860. Txos. L. Emory, 
Baltimore, May 21, 1860. Brantz Mayzr. 


22 


Dr. 


REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


DOCUMENT 


Board of Trustees of the McDonogh Educational Fund 
Agents of Baltimore in 





Vouchers. 


me co 


Ort 





To cash paid as follows: 

Expenses removing remains of Mr. MeDo- 
nogh to Baltimore, viz: 
P. Casanave, undertaker............ $183 00 
Captain Ryan, transportation to 
Baltimore, per schr. M. Clinton, 
per his acknowledgment forward- 
edto J. W. Randolph, Hsq......... 50 00 





N. Vignie, auction charges on sales and ad- 
vertising property for Sale. .....4.:ee0-as dems 
Edward Barnett, for sundry copies of acts of 
SALE dod entebd ues deity ole on sae acke- ots ea 
S. C. Hepburn, half cost of surveying pro- 
perty; and for plans. eis: iss. seo Sees a 
S. C. Hepburn, compensation, and expenses 
to Ibberville, in reference to property sold 
W.. . Wap k. uae ies a 
Fund reserved in Citizens’ Bank, transferred 
to Baltimore agents, to meet additional 
commissions allowed T. L. Emory, per 
act of City Council of Baltimore, approved 
Sept. 20, 1859, subject to fulfilment of con- 
ditions contained therein............s..sscceee 














OF THE M DONOGH ESTATE. 23 


K. 


and Institute of Baltimore, in account current with the Cr. 
the McDonogh Estate. 





By bills receivable transferred to your credit in 
Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, viz: | 


Due May 1 and May 5, 1860......... $6,817 64 
W.P. Wessel’s note, May 1, 1860... 181 21 
Due at various periods in 1861, 1862 Pepsi 

atid 1868 .. wwuind CONN ae Me ee 416,809 97, 


$423,808 82 
By sundry notes due 31st March and 8th April, 
1860, unpaid, with Robert Mott, Attorney, for 
collection, per receipt forwarded,........-......4 910 O01 
By amount received in cash and bills receivable 
for sales of property, per exhibits: 








MN IRB, HEY. Pil. o ns snccseaee. $9,933 60 
Si Ag eee iG SG See a 4,513 60 
MEL. sdctutpiodereind Yes sleaadke nists 73,713 30 








Less agents’ commissionus........ 3,246 42 
Fe rete han G98 











Nagoumt carried fotwartd.....cicesesscersnndnae $502,632 91 





24 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 
DOCUMENT. 
Dr. Boarp or ‘TRUSTEES OF McDonocu 





Tp amount brought over.........:.5:seenmdstieaie $5,138 27 

To amount deposited in the Fell’s Point Savings’ 
Institution of Baltimore, as a Tomb Fund, sub- . 
ject to the draft of the agents of the city of 
Baltimore, or either of them, according to the 
resolution of the board of joint administration 
of the agents of the city of Baltimore, and the 
Finance Committee of the city of New Orleans, | 
on 20th May, 1859, [see printed report of agents 
of Baltimore, June, 1859, page 35,| $3,752 94, 
(costing to remit from N. Orleans 3 premium) 3,767 00 
Amount appropriated for tomb........ $4,000 00 








Less cost of removing remains.......... 233 00 
$3,767 00 

To assets on hand in Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana: 
Cash in Citizeni’ Banke iii $11,589 90) 
Bills receivable, transferred April | 
17, 1860 5.6.5 Feu cate URE 416,809 97) 
Bills receivable from exhibits of sales i 
9D, BOs A 12 ec. cecleee. RS. See 66,056 40 


Bills receivable, due and unpaid, 
with Mott & Fraser, Attorneys, | 
for collection :...5.3sindeueeee. eee eer 1,271 BF 





$495,727 64 








$504,632 91 
| 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 25 


K.—(Continued.) 


EpucationaL Funp, &c., ContTINuen. Cr. 





By smote brought. over). .%, iis joss .daasedl denne ont $502,632 91 
By cash from J. B. Walton, Esq., Secretary of 

McDonogh School Fund of New Orleans, for 

half contribution towards removing remains of 

Mr. McDonogh, and cost of a tomb in Balti- 


$504,632 91 


New Orleans, May 7, 1860. 
Wo. 8. PETERKIN, 


T. L. Emory, 
Baltimore, May 21, 1860. Brantz Mayer, 
Agents City of Balt. McD, Estate, 


26 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


DOCUMENT L. 


Statement of assets from proceeds of sales of McDonogh estate, 


remaining on Ith May, 1860. 





To credit of agents of city of Baltimore in the 
Citizens’ Bank of Louisiana, to meet possible 
judgments, further expenses of suits, &e. 

OCT) Mes Mime a | $61,519 75 

PRs mpceiva ble. «x issneenains wai orotic 18,715. 20 








To credit of Board of Trustees of the McDonogh 
Educational Fund, &c., of Baltimore— 


Gash in Citizens’ Bank........,...0A.»0 11,589 90 
Bills receivable im oy 0.4 ssscpinesan ney 482,866 37 
Bills receivable, due and unpaid with 

counsel for collection..:...<re0»..s.bs«- 1271.37 








To cash deposited in Fell’s Point Savings Institu- 
tion, to be appropriated to the erection of a 
tomb for Mr. McDonogh 


ee ee ry 


Total net assets, so far realized 


ed 


$80,234 95 


495,727 64 


3,752 94 


$579,715 53 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 24 


DOCUMENT M. 


Statement of slaves belonging to the McDonogh Estate hired with 
the Allard Place, and whose term of service expires October 31, 
1860. 





ir 55 to 60 years of age. 
Ffomer............ bp too: Sa es 
Henry Porter...35 +040 ‘“ * 
Wem... .....053 20 She 495 
la). oe 20 C5 aby 
Tattle Henry....15t0 16 “*) 4‘ 
LL” ane Beto, 3... SHALES 
Little Thomas, 14 26 Marga 
VIAN. «da is'oe 60 years of age, wife of Homer. 
ars sas sew ating 40 ¢ x ‘¢’ Parker. 
Old Rose......... GO wits ‘¢ mother of Elvy. 
10 a a 40 to 45 years, mother of Nero and Henry. 
OSGi sss. chee 4 years of age, ? daughters of Ellen, 
Clementine...... By es ag deceased. 
Total now hired with Allard Place.............s:0cee00 14 


Deceased since last report, Johnson, an aged man... 1 


Potal per report of May 30, 1859s: v-isiwleod coated. ds 15 





28 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


DOCUMENT N. 


Statement of Notes maturing to May 5, 1860, belonging to interest 
of Baltimore in the McDonogh Estate, remaining unpaid. 








Harry Kelty, due 28-31 March, 1860.............. $29 68 
Nicholas Durn, do. do.) We ee 364 64 
L. Munier, do. do, |...) aan 38 16 
E. Houillion, do. do. 3. in eeeee 445 09 
Nicholas Glasser, due 5-8 April, 1860..........an 22 26 
Hu Mitchell, do. 10 18 
Paul Cox, due 2-5 May, 1860...........004 30 53 
Jas. Cox, do. do. | .. hi eee 26 71 
Daniel Cox, do. do.’ oe 30°53 
J. McNally, do. dow ® )). See aie 28 62 
Jas. Parker, do. i 40 28 
C's. Wheeler, 4 notes, due 2-5 May, 1860...... 204 69 
George Hillman, do. dos (aR 57 24 
M. E. Stack, do. do: CRS 76 32 
Ry. . Wessels, due 28-1 May a vedios nsaynen hina 181 21 

Per. report. 16) .:.OAR Et ete ee lithe a | $1,586 14 


The following notes have been subsequently paid. 
and must be deducted: 


WY. 1. WWOSSONB, . i. 4, ceocnreccsar eaten erie $181 21) 
incorge Millman... ...:.....c.ce0cstoaseeees 57 24 
ee WHACK. ©... s0sscp cone eee 76 32 


—_—- 314 77 











Actual amount of notes unpaid............... $1,271 37 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 29 


No. 8. ; 


Statement of Amount received in Bills Receivable, from the sales of the City of 
Baltimore's interest in the Estate of John McDonogh, for a portion of the pro- 
perty sold 28th April and 2d May, 1859, and collected since Agents’ account, 
rendered June 3, 1859. 

















Notes due|N otesdue|Notes due) Notes due 

PURCHASERS. 1860. | 1861. | 1862. | 1863. 
“TH. Brinkman ii:..0:.| $89 04 $94 08 $99 12) $104 16 
Jno Milos Wawa... cksgeses 34 34 36 29 88 23 40 17 
Jno. Henderson............ 180 73) 190 96; 201 19} 211 42 
dog TO Mees. « ) lasts ceed 71 86 75 93 80 00 84 O07 
Widow R. B. Rigg........ | 68 26 72 12, 75 99 79 84 
Hit A SbLErSOle... sek sities « 318 00) 336 00; 354 00) 372 00 
dohm Dawson:....1........: 42 40| 44 80; 47 20) 49 60 
oe EE a ie 42 40 44 80 47 20 49 60 
i a ae ae 50 88} 53 76) 56 64 59 52 
(CUD WES hs a aca a 50 88 53 76 56 64 59 52 
a, Hie Keller..,...... ant CCeeee | 95 40| 100 80) 106 20) 111 60 
1,044 19)1,103 30)1,162 41)1,221 50 

















RECAPITULATION. TorTAaL, 
Metes Ade i 1860.2... usakauuganead dove « Ql OF DO 
es Be ae tr etRR acre davon ieee? 1,103 30 
fs SOO TR es mrak Saas nicafle caine octets fe 1,162 41 
BRS BG 50 ihe) oopshcy ove iad'evene 1,221 50 
— $4,531 40 








*T. H. Brinkman’s notes due April 28, (May 1) 1860, 1861, 
1862, 1863. Residue of notes in this statement due 2-5 May, 
1860, 1861, 1862, 1863. 


30 


No. 9. 


REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


Statement of amount received in bills receivable and cash, from the sales of the City of 
Baltimore's interest in the MeDonogh estate, for a portion of the property sold 


March 5, 1860. 





PURCHASERS. 


Be Bernd dasgecing. ceiver 
Widow Gadd 


Ce a rio 
ere eres eeree 


ee Taylor AROS 3 ae 
Jotham Potter 


rs 


eter ewer eeneee 





Notes due 
5-8 March, 
1861. 





20 
20 


Notes due 
5-8 March, 


1862. 





Notes due | Notes due 
5-8 March, | 5-8 March, 
1863. 1864. 


$24 80 


$22 40| $23 60 
22 40| 28 60| 24 80 
23 59! 24 781 96 04 
70 56| 74 34! 78 19 
128 80) 135 70] 142 60 
170 24) 179 36 188 48 
$437 92) $461 38] $484 84 





Recapitulation of Bills Receivable. 





s¢ 1862 
cc 
*¢ 1864 


Cash received for part purchases for which 


these notes were given 


Ce er a 


eee eee ee | 


eee eee eee eee ee eee 


eee eee ee eee eee er) 


$414 46 
437 92 


1,798 60 





391 00 


Cash from W. Terry, for his purchase in 


full 


DEE EET Eee rE CHEER E HEHE HEHEHE ERE OHEH HE BES EEe 


eee 


744. 00 
1,135 00 


$2,933,60 


OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. Pit 


No. 10. 


Statement of Amount received in Cash and Bills Receivable, from the sales of the City of 
Baltimore’s interest in the McDonogh Estate, for a portion of the property sold 
May 4, 1860. 





Cash received from Doctor P. R. Stone......../....... $806 00 
Notes of Doctor P. R. Stone, as follows: 
Die 22 Mays SOW. vaia2. cite 2. der + cohen $854 36 
Dames iWeayy CSG2... ce lel cee eage 902 72) 
Be ay 1 GCS ne ses sescccsscsems 951 08) | 
MUG Ae SOL. sec siscesescstecs soccer 999 44) 
——| 3,707 60 








DMN alin cs ghia. cne thing oie dd eT hae duets ae, $4,513 60 


32 REPORT OF THE AGENTS 


No. 11. 


Statement of Amount received in Cash and Bills Receivable, from the sales of the City of 
Baltimore's interest in the McDonogh Estate, for a portion of the Property sold 
May 5, 1860. 











Cash received from Wm. L. Wynmn..............0.0000e $13,163 10 
Notes of Wm. L. Wynn, as follows: 
Die 578 May W861... sree: $13,952 88 
Pie O-8 MAY, AGO2 s.snc. ccs beeee 14,742 66 
Dye b-8:May,, 1863)... sahil apo aks 15,532 44 
DIRE AL AY, LOOSE Shah tant Sees coe 16,322 22 
— 60,550 20 





Peale sc ae Qual ae a $73,713 30 





OF THE M’DONOGH ESTATE. 33 


LETTER 


PROM THE 


BALTIMORE AGENTS, 


Reporting the Removal of Mr. McDonogh’s Remains to Baltimore. 


Baltimore, June 5, 1860. 
To the Honorable, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: 
Gentlemen:— 


The Agents of Baltimore for the McDonogh Hstate have the 
honor to inform you that, in compliance with the resolutions of 
our Mayor and Councils, passed and approved June 9th, 1858, 
they have forwarded the remains of Mr. McDonogh to Balti- 
more, according to the wish expressed by him in the ‘‘Memo- 
randa of Instructions’’ left for his executors. 


The resolutions of your honorable body were made known to 
the joint administration of this estate in New Orleans, and we 
are happy to inform you that the representatives of that city at 
once assented to our proposal to deposit in our hands an equal 
snm with the city of Baltimore, in order to defray the expenses 
of removing Mr. McDonogh’s remains and erecting a suitable 
monument and tomb. The resolutions passed by the Board 
were the following: 


‘‘Resolved, That the remains of John McDonogh be transferred 
to Baltimore, according to his request and the resolutions of 
the Mayor and City Council of that city, and that the sum of 
$4,000 be appropriated from the funds of the general estate to 
pay the necessary expenses of removal, and the erection of a 
suitable tomb and monument. 


34 REPORT OF THE AGENTS OF THE- M’DONOGH ESTATE. 


“Resolved, That the Agents of the City of Baltimore be em- 


powered to perform this duty, and requested to report thereon 


to the Mayor of this city on the fulfilment of it. 


‘Resolved, That the said Agents are authorized hereby to 
receive said sum of $4,000 from the joint funds of this estate, 
and are directed to deposit the amount in a bank of this city, 
subject to their draft as required.”’ 


In compliance with these resolutions, which were passed by 
the joint administration on the 20th of May, 1859, the Agents 
have received the sum of $4,000, and, after deducting the ex- 
penses of the undertaker, in New, Orleans, an@ for ry porta- 
tion by sea to Baltimore, have deposited the remaini ees 
of $3,752.94 as a “lomb Fund,”’ in the Fell’s Point. Savings 
Institution of this city, subject to their future disbursement. 


Mr. Anthony Jenkins has been entrusted by us with the 
duty of depositing Mr. McDonogh’s remains in the family 
vault of one of the undersigned, until the place and manner of 
their permanent entombment shall be decided on, The loca- 
tion of the tomb and the character of the monument are matters 
requiring deliberation, and accordingly, the undersigned beg 
leave to observe that their duty will be more agreeably per- 
formed if your honorable body will aid them by a consulting 
committee, composed of a member from each Branch of the 
Council. Our object in soliciting this committee to assist in 
deciding on the place of final sepulture and the rites appropri- 
ate to the memory of Baltimore’s benefactor, is not, of course, 
to avoid or lighten in any way the duty imposed on us; but in 
order that we may be enabled more perfectly to fulfil the wishes 
of our fellow-citizens in bestowing their testimonials of respect 
to the memory of the departed. 


We have the honor to be, gentlemen, 
with the greatest respect, 
your obedient servants, 
Brantz MAYER, 
Ww. S. Prererkin, 
Agents of the City of Baltimore for the McDonogh Estate. 








JBEPORT 










AND 
DOCUMENTS, 
RELATIVE TO THE McDONOGH ESTATE, 


FROM a: 











BRANTZ MAYER, 

WILLIAM 8. PETERKIN, 

. THOMAS L. EMORY, 

| AGENTS OF THE CITY OF Hauetmone. 

: 
BALTIMORE: 

Ks PRINTED BY JOSEPH ROBINSON. 


1855. 








REPORT 


AND 


DOCUMENTS, 
RELATIVE TO THE McDONOGH ESTATE, 


FROM 


BRANTZ MAYER, 
WILLIAM 8. PETERKIN, 
THOMAS L. EMORY, 


AGENTS OF THE CiTy or BALTIMORE. 


BALTIMORE: 
PRINTED BY JOSEPH ROBINSON. 





1855. 





] } ad 
’ 

Lt _ 
ra" 

“A a 

f “et 

iy ih 

7K 
LJ 8 





A UAROUT EPP 4 vo) A 
i =e 
(HOM. 82 One 


Ou yA Cee ae Dat iis " 


LRM aeg we 


THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 


ste , ) 
DOCUMENTS 


RELATIVE TO THE McDONOGH ESTATE. 


[Presented in First Branch, May 23d, page 789.] 


New Orzeans, May 9rx, 1855. 


To the Honorable 
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore: 


The undersigned, agents of the city of Baltimore for the manage- 
ment of the General Estate of John McDonogh, respectfully report, 
that upon their assemblage in New Orleans, their commissions were 
immediately recognized by the Fifth District Court, which had juris- 
diction of Mr. McDonogh’s estate. They found the three commis- 
sioners of the city of New Orleans prepared to co-operate with them; 
and, accordingly, proceeded without delay to organize the Board and 
require the delivery of the estate from the testamentary executors. As 
soon as an application to that effect was made to the court,—an appli- 
cation which received the prompt acquiescence of the executors,—an 
order was passed by the Honorable Judge Augustin, on the twenty- 
first of March, directing the delivery of the property of the succession 
“¢ to the Agents of Baltimore, acting in conjunction with the Commis- 
sioners appointed by the city of New Orleans.”’ 

In compliance with this order, the real estate of this succession, 
(except such portions as had been seld or expropriated by order of the 
court,) and the sum of $36,421.38, were delivered to this board on 
the twenty-seventh day of March, 1855 ; but, in consequence of the 
want of a general account of the property, showing its comparative 
condition with the original Inventory that had heen made in 1851, 
soon after the testator’s death, the undersigned declined to receive the » 


1 


2 


uncollected liabilities, the negroes, and a quantity of chattel property, 
until to-day. In the meantime the executors supplied us with copies 
of their six annual administration accounts, lodged in the Fifth Dis- 
trict Court of New Orleans, and furnished such other financial state- 
ments as were deemed necessary for the understanding of the manage- 
ment and accountability of the estate. 

From these documents we came to the conclusion that the adminis- 
tration should be at once accepted by the board, and the executors 
discharged by a receipt in full. A release was, accordingly, handed 
to the executors to-day, and all the undelivered portions of the suc- 
cession were immediately passed to us, together with the sum of 
$22,691 15. 

This amount, with the $36,421 38, previously received, on the 
27th of March, has been deposited in the “‘ Branch of the Louisiana 
State Bank,”’ to the credit of the “‘ Commissioners and Agents of the 
General Estate of John McDonogh,”’ bearing interest. 

With these preliminary remarks, we beg leave to offer the follow- 
ing summary of the estate that has passed into our hands, We desire, 
however, that it shall be distinctly understood, that most of the valua- 
tions are those of the Inventory made by appraisers in 1850 and 1851, 
and consequently that the fluctuations of property may have increased 
or diminished, in a considerable degree, the present value of the en- 
tire estate. 


isms 
CASH. 
We have received in cash from the Executors: 
On the 27th March, 1855, - 2 - = $36,421 38 
On the 9th May, 1855, - - - - - 22,691 15 
$59,112 53 
5 
' QnD: 
MOVEABLE OR CHATTEL PROPERTY IN THE ORLEANS 
THEATRE. 
Costumes,—at the present valuation by the Manager, - $2,270 00 
Scenery and decorations, do do - - 5,892 00 
Music of Operas, plays, library of the theatre generally, 
valued at 42,828 francs, or in dollars, about - - 8,600 00 


—_—, 





$16,762 00 


The ‘‘Inventory’’ comprises some furniture, &c. &c. of no great 
value at present, the whole of which is, according to that document, 
comprised in the Theatre and the adjoining Orleans Ball-room and 


3 


Coffee-house, and valued therein at $30,426. From this it will ap- 
pear that there has been considerable depreciation in this item of the 
estate during the five years that have nearly elapsed since the testa- 
tor’s death. 


3RD: 
THE NEGROES. 


On the ALLarD Ptace, at present, there are: 
7 males from 13 to 54 years, 
5 females from 17 to 69 years, 
3 children under 12. 


Total, 15 negroes. 


Since McDonogh’s death five males and one female have died, and 
one child has been born. 


On the St. Geme Puacz, at present, there are: 
10 males from 29 to 79 years, 
5 females from 26 to 79 years, 
1 boy 10 years, 
4 girls from 7 to 12 years. 


Total, 20 negroes. 


Two boys and one girl have been born, and two men and two wo- 
men died since McDonogh’s death. 


On the McDonocu Puacz: 
19 males from 12 to 74 years, 
11 females from 12 to 69 years, 
8 boys from 2 months to 3 years, 
8 girls do do do 


Total, 46 negroes. 


Seven males and two females are reported to have died; and five 
boys and five girls as having been born since McDonogh’s death. 


Three negroes belonging to the succession at the testator’s death, 
have been set free in compliance with his will, by decree of the fifth 
District Court. In fifteen years from his decease the whole are to be 
liberated and sent to Africa. ‘ 


In the Inventory of the estate, to which we have before referred, as 
made in 1850, ’51, the negro property of the succession was valued 
at the sum of $42,960. It will be seen by the preceding tables that 
there have been both births and deaths among the number; but we 


i 4 


cannot regard the slaves as, at present, representing the money value 
affixed to them by the appraisers five years ago. ‘They have but ten 
years more to serve the estate prior to their liberation under the will ; 
and, during the five years of unliquidated administration, we are of 
opinion, that the industrial qualities of the slaves have suffered very 
greatly. 


4TH: 
REAL ESTATE. 
(Valued according to the original Inventory.) 


In the Parish of Orleans, - $1,267,570 582 


“ “e Assumption, - - - 7,500 00 
ss 4 E. Baton Rouge, - - 31,500 00 
a “ St. Tammany, - - - 400 00 
Iberville, : - - 55,943 50 
b a St. Landry, - - - 500 00 
ie es Livingston, - - - 10,432 50 
iT ee St. Bernard, - - - 1,283 00 
4 “ Jefferson, - - - 339,630 00 
“ “ Plaquemines, - - - 68,615 00 








$1,783,374 583 


The real estate remains, of course, intact, as it was left at the death 
of the testator, with the exception of two pieces of property, viz: a 
portion of the Allard Hstate, near the city of New Orleans, which by 
a judgment of one of the courts was ‘‘ expropriated” at the instance 
of the city for the purposes of a Public Park. For the property thus 
condemned the city is responsible to the estate for $40,000. Besides 
this, another small piece of property was sold, by order of court, for 
the purpose of division and to close an estate. 


5TH: 
BILLS RECEIVABLE AND BOOK DEBTS. 


Bills receivable as per ‘Inventory 1851,” $413,218 98 





«not included in Inventory, - - 35 00 
° — $413,253 98 
Book debts marked Good in Inventory, - - 2» 256,55 31 
« ce  Donbtfa, 0.6 we tlt Se 
“ " Bad, le = (ee Ge eau Ue ame aD 


a 


$822,345 35 


Amount brought forward, - - - - - $822,345 35 


Of which have been collected and accounted for by Ex- 
ecutors : 











Bills receivable, - - - - - $223,692 51 
Book debts, - - - - - - 47,481 98 
_—— $471,174 49 
Balance due, - - - - = $351,170 86 
From which should be deducted : 
Loss by compromise of a bad debt, - - $12,326 98 
Bills receivable for leases of propery re- 
entered and cancelled, - =P DDS28d0 
—_—— $67,855 31 


Balance bills receivable and book debts which are to be 
collected by the commissioners and agents, if possible, $283,315 55 


Of this considerable sum of $283,315 55, we consider 
the following amounts utterly worthless: 


Old bills receivable, dating baeha as a as ane yeu 1800, 





barred by limitations, - - $97,793 47 
Worthless book debts, - - - - - - 118,570 25 
$216,363 72 


————————— 


Besides these, there are other amounts of a very doubtful charac- 
ter, and we may add that, in our judgment, the Executors have 
rendered available almost every thing that could be recovered in this 
department of the Hstate. 

We consider it scarcely worth while to estimate the value of the 
chattel property or moveables on the Allard, St. Geme, and McDon- 
ogh places, in the neighborhood of New Orleans. These places are 
leased or used with such articles as are necessary for agricultural pur- 
poses, or were on them at the testator’s death, and, of course, the im- 
plements will soon be worn out or require to be replaced by others. 
The rent of the places, with the negroes and moveables, has, in the 
course of the last five years, contributed to replace the small capital 
originally represented in the Inventory by these moveables. 


From these data we would present the following as a probable ap- 
proximate : 


6 


RESUME OF THE McDONOGH ESTATE: 


Cash, - - - - - - - - $59,112 53 
Orleans Theatre, properties, &c. as per estimate, - 16,762 00 
Ten years’ time of 81 negroes, young and old, say, - 20,000 00 
Real estate per Inventory of 1851, - “ - - 1,783,374 58 
Bills receivable and book debts, collectable, say, - 50,000 00 





Total, - - - - $1,929,249 11 


We should remark, that at the death of Mr. McDonogh, there were 
outstanding against him—Bills payable amounting to $121,720 08. 

These have been liquidated by the Executors, whose six annual 
administration accounts show the following results, viz: 











Account No. 1, $87,983 73 Receipts. $59,831 25 Paymy’ ts 
~ 2, 257,587 33 252, 486 83 
ee 3, 85,753 64 = * 81,110 30 FS 
oe 4, 39,461 94 40,294 oe 
a is 39,613 60 57,408 13 
e 6, 59,838 26 - 56,415 97 a 
$570,238 50 $547,547 35 
Balance, - - - $22,691 15 
Balance in Executor's hands, reported on their Istacct. $28,152 48 
ne ie Au ogg 33,252 98 
= 2 os oa ™ 37,896 32 
™ ve 4th “ 37,063 39 
«s 2 + our 19,268 86 
~ " im 6th ‘* 22,691 15 


From this sketch of the Estate, it will be seen that the bulk of the 
Testator’s fortune was invested in Real Estate. He seems to have in- 
vested his money upon the principle, that time and the increase of 
Louisiana’s population and wealth would augment the value of _ his 
lands vastly. 

Accordingly, we find that at his death, the buildings on most of 
his city property were exceedingly dilapidated, and consequently that 
the Executors were compelled to expend considerable sums in mak- 


7 


ing the stores and dwellings tenantable or productive. ‘This fact, to- 
gether with the large costs of law proceedings to sustain the will, has 
been the source of perhaps the greater part of the expenditure that 
figures in the six annual accounts. Besides this, we would observe, 
that the amount of productive property, which is chiefly to be found 
in the Parish of Orleans and in the neighborhood of this city, bears 
no proportion to the vast quantity of wild, uncultivated, and forest 
land lying in nine of the other parishes of Louisiana. If the Testa- 
tor had balanced his landed property, by larger productive invest- 
ments, the yearly revenue would of course have been larger, because 
the unproductive would not have consumed so much of the produc- 
tive. But, taking the whole of the landed estate, according to our 
preceding tables, to be worth one million nine hundred thousand dol- 
lars, and the present productive income to average near sixty thousand 
dollars, we shall find that the estate does not pay more than 3} per 
cent. Toss. 

Since the organization of this Board, the Commissioners and 
Agents have directed their attention, mainly, to the City proper- 
ty, which they were enabled to examine personally. At this season, 
with the summer rapidly approaching, they have not been able to do 
much, either in granting new leases or augmenting the rates of old 
ones. Nevertheless, they are glad to say, that they have already in- 
creased the rental, by the sum of two thousand two hundred and sixty 
dollars a year, and they doubt not that if they are allowed to mature 
their plans, (which they are happy to say meet the approval of the 
most discreet land-owners in this city,) they will, in twelve or eigh- 
ne months, exhibit @ city rental of near one hundred thousand dol- 
ars. 

In order to do this, they design employing persons during the sum- 
mer, to prepare a complete plan of the immense number of unim- 
proved city lots belonging to this succession, accompanied by state- 
ments of their value and capacity for division with a view to leas- 
ing. These lots, the Board propose, in the autumn, offering to the 
public,— probably by auction,—on leases varying from one to 
twenty-five years, according to the principles of the 'Testator’s will ; 
—and from the numerous applications made to us by persons desir- 
ing to lease, the Board is convinced that the greater portion of. what 
is now idle and valueless in the city, may be made to yield a re- 
venue. 

But, while such is the prospect in regard to land in and about New 
Orleans, the Agents and Commissioners do not think a similar mode 
of action will avail for the property in the nine-other parishes of 
Louisiana. The land in those quarters is generally in large tracts, 
calculated for plantations only. It must be obvious to every one ac- 
quainted with agriculture in this section, that a system of 25 year 
leases, to which we seem limited by the will, will not tempt capitalists 


8 


or responsible persons to such outlays as are always required for the 
culture of sugar and cotton. 

There is in the neighborhood of New Orleans a quantity of land 
belonging to the Estate, still covered by the original forest. ‘The 
timber on it is valuable for many purposes ; and as wood is becoming 
an object of gain along the river in this vicinity, the Board is now 
engaged in devising a scheme by which a revenue of several thou- 
sand dollars may every year be added to our rental. 

While enumerating the negroes belonging for ten years more to this 
succession, we intimated that their industrial qualities had suffered 
considerably during the five years of unliquidated administration. 
In such a state of affairs, it is difficult to maintain that degree of dis, 
cipline which is essential not only for an owner’s profit from slave 
labor, but for the moral character and happiness of the negro himself. 
Impressed by the well known philanthropic sentiments of Mr. McDon- 
ogh towards the race, and especially to the servants he owned, we 
have not delayed to consider and discuss the future condition and em- 
ployment of these people. The question is one of much interest not 
only to the servants themselves, but to the cities now the owners of 
this vast estate. We hope that our final determinations will be found- 
ed on the Christian philanthropy of the Testator, and redound to the 
welfare and happiness of his slaves. 

In conclusion, we beg leave to state, that immediately after the or- 
ganization of this Board, a committee was appointed to report aseries 
of ‘<‘ Fundamental Rules’’ for the administration of the Estate. The 
report was unanimously adopted, and we have the honor to hand you 
a printed copy of it. ; 

The rules, we believe, are well calculated to insure a systematic, 
orderly, and faithful administration, and to enforce the accountability 
of every one connected with it. We sincerely hope they will receive 
your approbation. 

We annex also: 

Ist. A summary Rent Roll of the Estate for 1855. 

2d. A copy ofan Act of the last Louisiana Legislature authorizing 
the Commissioners and Agents of New Orleans and Baltimore to di- 
vide this Estate by partition, and to settle with the legatees. 

3d. A copy of the Opinion of Mr. Roselius as to exemption from 
city taxation by New Orleans. 

4th. A copy of the Fundamental Rules of this Board. 


We have the honor to be your obedient servants, 


Brantz Maver, 
Wo. S. PETERKIN, 
Taos. L. Emory. 


Agents for the City of Baltimore. 


STATE OF LOUISIANA, 
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS: 


Be it remembered, that on this twelfth day of May, in the year of 
our Lord eighteen hundred and fifty-five, in the city of New Orleans, 
La., before the subscriber, a Commissioner of Deeds for the State of 
Maryland, duly commissioned, personally appeared Brantz Mayer, 
William S. Peterkin and Thomas L. Emory, and made oath on the 
Holy Evangely of Almighty God that the facts set forth in the pre- 
ceding report, made by them as Agents for the city of Baltimore of 
the General Estate of John McDonogh, are true to the best of their 
knowledge and belief. 


In Testimony whereof, I have hereto subscribed my name and af- 
fixed my seal on the day and year above written. 


Watter H. Peters, 


A Commissioner for Maryland in New Orleans, La. 


[ Seat. ] 


1 


[ 
RENT 


0 


1] 
ROLL 


Of McDonogh E'state in the City of New Orleans and Parish of 
Orleans, per statement of Testamentary Executors. 








ee ee 


1st District, 
Add to Bean & weaes 


2d District, 
Add Citizens’ Bank, - 
Add Orleans Theat: $1,625— 

payable in Dec. and Feb’y, 


3d District, - - 


Total City of New Orleans, 


Towns of McDonogh & Algiers, - 


Total yearly rent, 











Monthly Rent.| Yearly Rent.| Torat. 
$2,333 50 |$28,002 00 
125 00 1,500 00 
————— | ——_—_—_ $29,502 00 
1,366 50 | 16,398 50 
416 663} 5,000 00 
3,250 00 
———|_ 24,648 50 
574 50 6,894 50; 6,894 00 _ 
2 - s - |$61,044 50 
79 163 938 00 938 00 
cs - - - |$61,982 50 











W. P. Sinnorr, Secretary 
of the Board of Commissioners and Agents of the McDonogh Estate. 


11 


[2] 


AN ACT 


To authorize the Commissioners on the part of the City of New 
Orleans, and the Agents of the City of Baltimore, Managers of 
the general Estate of the late John McDonogh, deceased, to divide 
said Estate by partition, and to make final setilements with the 
Legatees. 


Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives in General Assembly convened, that the Commissioners on the 
part of the City of New Orleans, and the Agents of the City of Bal- 
timore, Managers of the general Estate of the late John McDonogh, 
deceased, be and they are hereby authorized to divide said estate by 
partition, between the cities of New Orleans and Baltimore, and to 
make final settlements with the Legatees, mentioned in the will, and 
to do and perform all other lawful acts which may be necessary to 
make a division of the property between the said cities of New Or- 
leans and Baltimore; provided the cities of New Orleans and Balti- 
more concur in said acts. 

Sec. 2. Be it further enacted by the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives in General Assembly convened, that this act shall go into 
effect after its passage. 


12 


[3] 
New Orteans, May 9th, 1855. 


To the Commissioners and Agents of the 
General Estate of John McDonogh, 


GENTLEMEN: 


I have the honor to communicate to you my opinion on the points 
submitted in your resolution of the 8th instant: 

Ist. All the property of the succession of John McDonogh, belong- 
ing jointly to the cities of Baltimore and New Orleans, it follows as 
a necessary consequence, that the claim for one-half of the tax of the 
city of New Orleans is extinguished by confusion; but as regards the 
other half, it is due, unless the whole property is exempted from taxa- 
tion on the ground that it is destined to charitable uses. ‘This ques- 
tion will be considered in giving my opinion on the third point. 

2d. The acceptance of the bequest by the universal legatees, had 
a retroactive effect to the period of the death of the testator, and 
therefore, the exemption from municipal taxation, so far as the undi- 
vided interest in the property of the city of New Orleans is concerned, 
commenced from the death of the testator. 

3d. I do not consider, that the second section of the Act of 1853, 
exempting public hospitals, asylums, poor-houses, and all other char- 
itable institutions for the relief of indigent and afflicted persons, and 
the lots appurtenant thereto, &c., as applicable to the McDonogh 
legacy. Iam, therefore, of opinion, that under existing legislation, 
the undivided moiety of the estate belonging to Baltimore is subject 
fo municipal taxation. 


I am, gentlemen, very respecfully 
Your obedient servant, 


(Signed) C. Rosexivs. 


13 


[edly 


FUNDAMENTAL RULES 


For the administration of the General Estate of Joan McDonoau, 
adopted by the Commissioners and Agents of New Orleans and 
Baltimore ; and the Opinion of Mr. Rosetivus as to their Powers 


and Duties. 


Immediately after the organization of the commissioners and Agents 
of the general estate of John McDonogh, it was resolved to obtain the 
opinion of Mr. Christian Roselius in regard to the Board’s Aministra- 
tive powers; and, at the same time, to appoint a committee whose 
duty it should be to draw up a series of ‘“‘ Fundamental Rules’? for 
the administration of the property. 

The two following papers, published by order of the Board, are the 


results of those deliberations. 


BRANTZ MAYER, 
A. D. CROSSMAN, 


Eixecutive Committee of the Board of 
Commissioners and Agents of the 
General Estate of John McDonogh. 


New Orteans, April 24, 1855, 


14 


OPINION OF MR. ROSELIUS. 


To the Commissioners and Agents 
of the General Estate of John McDonogh: 
GENTLEMEN : 


In compliance with your request, I submit my opinion on the ques- 
tion propounded, viz: 

‘¢What is the present legal operation of Mr. McDonogh’s Will, and 
the effects on that instrument of the decisions in regard to it rendered 
by the Supreme Courts of the United States and of the State of 
Louisiana.”’ 

By reference to the different judgments rendered in the suits to 
which the Will has given rise, it will be seen that every clause and 
disposition which it contains has been maintained. The first of these 
decisions was rendered by Judge Buchanan, of the Fifth District 
Court of New Orieans. He observes, in the concluding part of his 
opinion:— Being of opinion, for the reasons above given, that this 
devise of John McDonogh to the Mayor, Aldermen, and inhabitants 
of New Orleans, of the undivided half of his estate, subject to the 
payment of certain legacies and annuities, is good in law, and that 
said devise and bequest have not lapsed ; that consequently, the State 
of Louisiana is not entitled to take under the will of John MceDonogh, 
the half of the estate in the place and stead of said Mayor, Aldermen 
and inhabitants of New Orleans :—Judgment for Defendants.’’ 

On the appeal, this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court 
of Louisiana. 

In the case of—“The Executors of John McDonogh, deceased, e¢ al; 
appellants, vs. Mary Murdoch, e¢ al., heirs of John McDonogh, de- 
ceased,’’—The Supreme Court of the United States decreed that the 
Bill of the Complainants be dismissed. 

lt is obvious, therefore, that the Will of the Testator has not been 
modified or affected in any manner by the decisions rendered in rela- 
tion to it. Whatever intimations may have been thrown out by the 
courts as to the validity of certain dispositions of the Will, they can 
produce no legal effect so far as the Commissioners and Agents are 
concerned, for such intimations can be viewed in no other light than 
obiter dicta. 

The Will of John McDonogh, therefore, stands and is to be ex- 
ecuted as he wrote it. ‘The Commissioners and Agents of New Or- 
leans and Baltimore have been appointed in pursuance of, and de- 


15 


rive their power from the Will. Hence, the source of their authority 
is the Will itself. As regards the ‘“‘Memoranda of Instructions”’ 
which Mr. McDonogh left ‘to be opened and kept by the Execu- 
tors,’’—they have no binding effect, but may be consulted by you as 
advice which you are at liberty to follow or not, according to the dic- 
tates of your own judgment. 

From this view of the subject it follows as a necessary conse- 
quence, that the Commissioners and Agents are bound to carry into 
effect, as far as possible, every disposition of the Will, and that the 
obligation imposed on them in this respect is similar to that of 'Testa- 
mentary Executors. I deem it unnecessary and uncalled for by your 
resolution to express any opinion on those parts of the Will the valid- 
ity of which may perhaps be questioned. 

My answer, therefore, to your question is, that the present opera- 
tion of Mr. McDonogh’s Will is to constitute the cities of Baltimore 
and New Orleans, joint owners of all the property left by the Testa- 
tor, which is to be administered in the manner and for the purposes 
specified by him, subject to the payment of the special legacies be- 
queathed by him. One of these,—that of $6000, to his sister Jane, 
widow of Hamet, has lapsed by her death before the 'Testator. An- 
other,—that of a tract of land in Baltimore county, to the children of 
his sister Jane, widow Hamet, has become null, by the conveyance 
by the Testator of the property forming the object of that legacy to 
the contemplated legatees before his death. Four-eighths of the an- 
nual revenue of the estate are bequeathed to four special legatees, 
named in the will, to be paid as annuities, for a long period of years. 
Whatever may be my opinion as regards the validity of these special 
bequests, itis needless to state, as the Commissioners and Agents 
cannot raise any objection to them under their present appointment, 
for the reasons already mentioned. 


Respectfully submitted, 
C. ROSELIUS. 


ReEcoRDED BY THE ComMissIONERS AND AGENTS, 
New Orueans, April 8, 1855. 


16 


REPORT OF COMMITTEE. 


The committee to which the subject of the management and future 
regulation of this succession was referred at a late meeting of the 
Board, beg leave to report and recommed the adoption of the follow- 
ing : 

FUNDAMENTAL RULES 


For the control of the McDonogh estate by the commissioners and 
agents of the cities of New Orleans and Baltimore. 


I.—In conformity with the written opinion of Christian Roselius, 
Esq., received by this Board on the 8th of April, 1855, and recorded 
in the Book of Minutes on page , itis the duty of the commis- 
sioners and Agents of New Orleans and Baltimore, to administer the 
estate of John McDonogh, in all its departments, according to the Will 
of the deceased. 

II.—F or the systematic organization of this Board and beneficial 
management of the property, it is considered proper that there shall 
be:— 

1st.—A presiding officer of the Board chosen from among its mem- 
bers yearly, on the first Monday following the election of the New 
Orleans Commissioners, who shall be styled, ‘‘ President of the Board 
of Commissioners and Agents of the general estate of John McDon- 
ogh.’’ He shall preside and preserve order at all meetings of the 
Board, and shall continue in office for twelve months, unless removed 
by a vote of the Board, death, resignation, or termination of his offi- 
cial character as Agent or Commissioner either for New Orleans or 
Baltimore. During his period of service he shall always be one of the 
two members of the ‘‘Executive Committee,’’ hereinafter provided 
for. 

2d.—A secretary shall be annually elected at the same time as the 
President of the Board. He shall be selected, and hold his office, on 
the principles and according to the terms set forth in the ‘‘Memoranda 
of Instructions to the Exxecutors of John McDonogh,’’ which accom- 
panied his Will, and may be found on page 37 of the printed copy of 
that document. The engagement made with the Secretary, “should 
only be during good behavior and satisfaction given by him, in all 


- 





| 








Kia 


respects, in the fulfilment of the duties of his office;’’ and he shall be 
required, before entering on the discharge of his functions, to furnish 
a bond for his fidelity, with such security or securities, and to such an 
amount, as may be required by the board. 

3d.—Three Committees, viz :—A ‘‘ Committee on Real Hstate 
and Slaves,’’ to consist of four members, two from New Orleans, and 
two from Baltimore;—a ‘* Committee on Finance,’’ to consist of two . 
members, one from New Orleans, and one from Baltimore;—and 
an ‘‘ Fixecutive Committee,’’ to consist of two members, one from 
New Orleans, and one from Baltimore,—shall be elected annu- 
ally on the same day as the President, to serve for twelve months, or 
until changed by a vote of the Board. ‘The two first named com- 
mittees shall each have the entire supervision of the respective depart- 
ment whose name it bears. It shall be their duty to report in writ- 
ing, at each semi-monthly meeting of the Board, on the condition and 
requirements of their respective sections. Upon the reports thus 
made, every thing relative to the necessary purchases, leases of real 
estate, auditing of bills and accounts, employment and hiring of the 
slaves belonging to the succession, as well as the general expenses 
and management of the administration; shall be considered and de- 
termined by the Board. The ‘* Executive Committee’’ shall carry 
into effect all the administrative determinations and orders, thus 
passed at each semi-monthly meeting, and shall have power to draw 
and sign all checks and pay all sums due by the estate, which shall 
first have been voted by the Board. 

III.—All the funds, at any time on hand, belonging to this suc- 
cession, shall be deposited in such Bank or Banks of New Orleans as 
the Board of Commissioners'‘and Agents may deem proper. 'T'he de- 
posit shall always be made to the credit of the Commissioners and 
Agents of the General Estate of John McDonogh, and shall only be 
drawn out in pursuance of a resolution of the Board, which must be 
noted in its minutes. 

IV .—All applications for leasing, or for any other purpose connect- 
ed with the management of this estate, shall only be received and en- 
tertained when made in writing ;—such applications shall always be 
filed away, under their respective heads, by the Secretary, and their 
consideration and final disposal noted in the Minutes. All tenants of 
this estate shall hold only by written leases; and rent-notes, corres- 
ponding with the terms thereof, shall be taken from all tenants, with- 
out distinction of persons. 

V.—It shail be the duty of the Secretary to be constantly present 
at the office of the Board, during the usual business hours daily. He 
shall keep a minute of all the proceedings of the Board, and be re- 
sponsible for the safe custody of all the books, papers, and titles of the 
estate, and of the Commissioners and Agents. He shall’ make all 


3 


18 


such collections of money due this estate as he may be directed to do 
by a vote of the Board, and shall deposite in Bank, daily, the sum or 
sums which he shall have collected during the hours of business. 
He shall be responsible for the fulfilment of any appropriate duty of 
a financial or administrative character, with which he may be entrust- 
ed by the Executive Committee. 

Inasmuch as the Secretary is to be the book-keeper and accountant 
of this estate, it is considered proper to establish the following basis of 
his system :— 

There shall be a real estate account opened with every piece of pro- 
perty, which shall be designated by a number corresponding with the 
Inventories of Mr. McDonogh’s Estate, taken by the Testamentary 
Executors and duly homologated. In this account the property shall 
be credited with all the revenues it yields, and charged with all the 
expenses, taxes, repairs, insurances, d&c. &c., it incurs. 

The Real Estate account of all the property which shall be under 
lease, tenancy, occupation ; and, in fact, of all which is not wild un- 
cultivated land ; shall be balanced on the first of every month ; ex- 
amined, and if need be, corrected by the Board at its first subsequent 
meeting. 

A general rent and expense account of Real Estate, shall be open- 
ed and kept, in which all rents received, and expenses and charges 
paid, shall be balanced on the first day of every month ; and submit- 
ted to the board for its examination and correction. 

An account called the ‘Stave Account’? shall be opened and 
kept, in which the value of each and every negro belonging to the 
estate shall be given, and the productive value of his or her labor, as 
well as the requisite expense of the estate for each individual, shall be 
set forth. Should the slaves be hired out, the account shall be cre- 
dited with the wages and charged with whatever may be expended on 
them by order of the Board. Should they be employed by the Com- 
missioners and Agents, as mechanics or laborers, working for the 
benefit of the estate, the account ought also to be credited with the 
daily or weekly value of their industrial services while so employed. 

Separate accounts shall be opened and kept with the city of Balti- 
more and the city of New Orleans, the American Colonization So- 
ciety, the Asylum for the Poor of the City of New Orleans, the So- 
ciety for the relief of Destitute Orphan Boys of the City of New Or- 
leans, and the School Farm of the City of Baltimore, in which each 
shall be credited with the proportion of the ne¢t revenues to which it 
is entitled under the Will, and debited with whatever sums may be 
paid to it or its legal representatives respectively. 

Inasmuch as the Kxecutive Committee, may, from time to time, 
consider it proper to direct the Secretary to oversee the faithful execu- 
tion of contracts which it may make for the repairs and of the im- 


19 


provements on the real estate of this succession, as well as to purchase 
such supplies of food, raiment, and merchandise as may be needed 
for the slaves belonging to this administration, the said Secretary shall 
be held responsible for the faithful performance of all such delegated 
trusts. 

VI.—As the management of this Estate should be conducted with 
the same economy and discretion that would be devoted to a private 
property, the following are hereby declared to be fundamental rules 
of the Board :—1st. That no money shall, at any time, be expended, 
or contract, or purchase made, or negotiation entered into, unless 
voted by a majority of the Agents and Commissioners, at a regular 
semi-monthly meeting. 2d. ‘That no money shall be paid except 
on the production of a voucher which shall have been approved by 
the Board, and of triple receipts, one of which shall be kept for the 
Kstate and filed by the Secretary,—one transmitted to the City of 
Baltimore,—and one transmitted to the City of New Orleans, together 
with the accounts of this Administration which the Agents and 
Commissioners shall despatch to those cities annually or semi- annually. 
3d. That the proceedings of this Board, its Minutes, and its books of 
property and accounts, shall always be considered of @ strictly conji- 
dential character, and shall be confined exclusively to the six members 
of this Board and their Secretary. ‘The books of account and records 
of proceedings, or minutes, shall be always accessible, however, to 
the duly authorized inspection of those to whom the Commissioners 
and Agents are by law amenable. ; 

VIL.—All bills receivable, book accounts, and other liabilities of any 
character due to the Estate of John McDonogh, and uncollected by 
the 'lestamentary Exxecutors at the period of their delivery of this 
succession to the Commissioners and Agents, shall be closed as soon 
as practicable, either by process of law or private arrangement, with 
the assent of the Board. It shall be tbe duty of the Secretary to 
Open an account embracing this UnuievipaTED PorRTION oF THE 
Estate, and which shall also show the payment of all such debts or 
liabilities due by the Estate which may have originated, during its 
administration by the Testamentary Fixecutors. 

VIII.—The Committee on Real Estate and Slaves shall examine 
into, and without delay report on the condition of the real property 
of this succession, and suggest means by which its income may be in- 
creased and the vacant property leased or rendered productive. 

1X.—The same Committee shall examine into, and without delay 
report, on the condition of the Slave property of this succession, and 
suggest means for its maintenance, liberation in conformity with the 
Will, or improved industrial character. 

X.—The Committee on Finance shall have a general power of 
_ supervising the accounts of the Estate as kept by the Secretary. It 
_ shall examine the general accounts, bills, annual or semi-annual state- 


20 


ments, investments, &c. &c., and supervise the management of a 
small contingent fund to be voted by the Board, for the payment of 
the petty charges incident to this trust. 

XI.—A majority of the Board of Agents and Commissioners shall 
constitute a guorwm, without which no business shall be transacted. 
The Secretary shall always enter on his minutes of each meeting the 
names of the members present ; and, if ever it becomes necessary for 
any of them to leave the city, the fact of their departure and absence 
shall be noted thereon. 'The proceedings of every meeting, after ap- 
proval by the Board at its next subsequent assemblage, shall be signed 
by the President of the Board and the Secretary. 

XII.—In conformity with the Will of John McDonogh, as set forth 
on the twenty-first page of the printed copy thereof, the three Agents 
of the City of Baltimore ‘shall have equal powers”? with the three 
Commissioners of the City of New Orleans, ‘* and an equal vote on 
all affairs of business, as they will represent an equal interest.’? No 
vote shall be taken, or arrangement made by which these fundamental 
rules shall be, in any respect, altered, suspended or repealed, in whole 
or in part; or any leases made, or any important contracts entered 
into, touching any portion of the property of this succession, unless a 
majority of the Agents of Baltimore, and a majority of the Agents of 
New Orleans shall be present. If it should happen that either Agents 
or Commissioners, or any of them, shall be absent from New Or- 
leans, and it should become necessary or beneficial for this Estate that 
acts of importance should be speedily done, then, upon the written 
request of the President, duly recorded, such absentees may despatch 
to him their written votes on the proposition, which shall be filed with 
the papers of the estate, recorded by the Secretary in his minutes, and 
counted as if the said voting-Commissioners or Agents were present. 
The regular meetings of the Board shall be semi-monthly,—the 
period to be fixed at the meeting at which these rules may be adopt- 
ed, at which time, the members of the three committees shall also be 
elected to serve for the rest of the year 1855, and until their succes- 
sors shall be regularly selected. 


All of which is respectfully submitted, 


BRANTZ MAYER, ) 
on the part of Baltimore. ‘ 
P. E. BONFORD, ? Committee 
on the part of New Orleans. } 


New Onzeans, April 1Jth, 1855. 


21 


Ata meeting of the Board of Commissioners and Agents, on the 
11th April, 1855, it was unanimously resolved that the preceding Re- 
port should be adopted and recorded in the Book of Minutes, as the 
Fundamental system for the government and administration of the 
McDonogh Estate. 


A. D. CROSSMAN, 
JOHN CULBERTSON, > Commissioners for N. Orleans. 
P. KE. BONFORD, 


BRANTZ MAYER, 
WM. S. PETERKIN, ¢ Agents for Baltimore. 
THOS. L. EMORY, 


New Orurans, May Ist, 1855. 





¢ \ 








Avi % 
ihe 


iho avery d beer meen nao 8 eel eae 
Si -anihbonvie odtdadk hagloeor ylorianaa 


al) an eawtuailt te kéok ad nt faliyiie4 hiss ir 


af? Yoo col icicle: kai determi oy st 
uy 1 et ai 
6 Oval 
ee ee .. a 1h 


eR nC f heme 
eave yo ¥ Ah RO ARR: Moet sa He i 
id et Oa | 


i] : 
bs 


‘ - At Hi rh £ aa: 
FT hb Bo ? i a Ws a ve a 


Bil ¥ 
Eh 
: r 
a way : 
{ 
ri v 
Bi { 
it 
' 
e 
WA's 
} 
#| 
$2 
wey 
. | 
\ 














& 


Paden ue po eee i 
- FRANCIS THOMAS. © 


fe ye. F 














ea 


we / 









WieRTSdep rine eemendre eA hea emesis oe alliemae attic aaa ate eke pe 





‘ oe 
e : 
‘ - 
a? 5 
é 
at ; ', ie 
, 1 if 7 M 
ty ae! Bs 
i 4h aay 
) 4 by 
‘ a by o iat 
a yeteig : : 
fi * 
ll it } i atti 
i) %, 1 
os ©. ‘ 


al? 


N 


_TO THE PUBLIC. 


F ‘ 


— 
™ 
~~ 
“ss 





Monravée, Freperick County, Maryianp, 
February 19, 1845. 


Conspicuous calumniators, who have labored to forestall and 
pervert public sentiment, have left me no alternative but this, to 
me exquisitely painful, publication. Sensible of the partial success 
of their contrivances, for a long period of time I submitted almost 
in silence to the shocking and disgusting slanders of me, which 
they disseminated. For a woman was invyoived; and even if I 
had not tenderly and desperately loved her, sex alone was sacred 
in my consideration. If not my wife, even if a stranger, I 
could not, without infinite reluctance, expose her frailties, or soil 
her character. Never have I taken a liberty with, spoken ill of, 
or given umbrage to any virtuous female. At now past life’s 
meridian, I can with perfect truth aver, that the chastity, privacy, 
or society, the name or character of a woman, of any woman of 
character, never was invaded or disparaged by any act or word of 
mine. Having lived, until somewhat advanced in years, a life of 
study and ambition, little familiar with female society, I may have 
seemed wanting in that respect and attention for ladies which no 
doubt refines and improves man. ’ But to degr ne, as has 
become the stern duty and only alternative of “il es a ba 
tion, is a resort to which I could be driven only by the daggers of 
the men of her family, aimed at the only portion in life I have left, 
dearer to me than life itself—a character till now unblemished, 
and which must and shall be vindicated, at whatever cost. 

When the horrible doubts of Mrs. Thomas’ fidelity flashed on 
my mind, lacerated my. affections, disordered, distracted, un- 
manned me, even my reproaches were never harsh—my conduct 
was not cruel or arbitrary—I exercised no overruling authority, I 
did not repudiate or drive her from my dwelling. _ I did not, could 
not, even yield positively my belief to the evidences against her. 
I still alternately doubted, hoped and confided, and long felt the 
excruciating agony of one who doubts, yet doats, and fondly loves. 

During several months of anguish, my constant endeavor was 
to prevail on her to leave me and return to her father’s house, 
without public scandal ; to separate at least till we might, if pos- 


/ 


P$3461 


4 + 


sible, come together again, with my belief in her fidelity r 
her proofs of it made good. I dreaded public scandal for 
and for mine too. I desired, that her parents and friends might 
interpose, and either reconciliation or separation be brought about, 
without the world’s malign intermeddling. To her and her family 
alone were my distrusts intimated.. The public saw no outbreak, 
they had no evidence of estrangement. She continued apparently 
unconcerned and sociable in the world as ever. I repressed bitter 
feelings by, at any rate, no act or word of violence, betrayed them 
to others. I sought her family and besought their mediation. 






With great difficulty I prevailed on them to take part in my dis- 
tress. They avoided ; I insisted on interference. I offered every 


explanation and facility of intercourse with Mrs. Thomas and with 
myself. I unbossomed to them, and to them alone, my griefs, 
which, though unavoidably teproachful, were never uttered in 
indignant or reproachful language.. They cannot: deny, that my 
expostulations were often in tears; and that I earnestly entreated 
a domestic investigation and family judgment, of the complaints 
I was constrained to prefer, and proofs I submitted. 

One of the calumnies attempted to be fastened on me, is harsh 
treatment, violence of conjugal sway, debarring Mrs. Thomas from 
the liberties of a wife. ‘This mere calumny is without even pre- 
text. I never confined her or deprived her of any liberty she could 
claim ; and defy proof of it. Never did I upbraid her with any 
such terms, as the following disclosures will satisfy every one, I 
might have justifiably used. On the contrary, I treated her uni- 
formly with tenderness. In the presence of her parents in Balti- 
more I claimed the right to make this solemn averment; she did 
not even contest it. In all the fitful moods of distracted affection, 
which I own almost unsettled my understanding, nothing violent, 
cruel or ungenerous ever marked my deportment, or fell in the ut- 


most orgs grief from my lips. For I repeat, I am inca- 






pable of ly wounding any woman; and the one whom this 
narrative expose, I have had the misfortune to love with the 
fondest, truest, best devotion. 

I own therefore anxiety, that they to whom this appeal is ad- 
dressed, wrung from me by dire necessity, when all other redress 
is denied, I own much anxiety that it may be received as my only 
alternative from a life of dishonor, worse than death. I premise 
this statement with the assurance, that it never would have been 
published if any other resort were left for me, After mildly en- 
treating an infatuated wife to return to her parents for domestic 
trial’ of my accusations, surrounded and supported by her best 
friends ; after explaining to them that accusation, and repeating my 
prayer for’such a trial, and consenting to herJeaving me and going 
home, as will be hereafter explained, I still and constantly perse- 
vered in a reserve as near as possible to absolute silence ;, waiting 
and hoping for refutal of my fears.and restoration of my wife. In 
anguish and ill-concealed distraction I waited, if not patiently, at 


ag 


5 


* 
least forbearingly in silence, till roused from it by the infernal ca- 
lumnies of the men of her family, who have endeavored to acquit 
‘her by defaming me. Mrs. Thomas left me and returned to her 
father’s house with the fruits of marriage in her bosom; yet did 
members of her family propagate gross and false imputations against 
me, which, if true, branded her with adultery and her child as ille- 
gitimate! Yes; while I was living alone in the solitude of the 
large Governor’s mansion at Annapolis, shrinking from all associa- 
tion with the world, chief magistrate of the State of Maryland, 
for many years before a faithful and not an unknown member of 
the Congress of the United States; a man till then of fair report,. 
whom even party violence had not attacked in his privatg charac- 
_ ter; living thus in such miserable constrained silence, and subja- 
- gation of feeling, as affected me at times almost to insanity on one 
subject, the cunning and savage champions of a rash wile, filled 
the ears of all who would hear them with vulgar, blackguard asper- 
sions on my person, character and reputation. They defamed not 
me alone, but the woman they were to vindicate by their vile tac- 
tics, and even assailed the child she bore in her bosom, by the 
most detestable and intolerable of alldetractions. ‘They mortified 
and distressed my venerable and venerated father, with whose name 
dishonor, during a life of near eighty winters, has never been con- 
nected; a father who received the portionless daughter of Gov. 
McDowell as his own, and provided for her every comfort. The 
disgusted and dismayed my excellent and irreproachable sisters 
in their unobtrusive spheres of respectable life; my brother, my 
nephews, my nieces; a large family to whom till then, I had been 
familiar only as a man worthy of that which it had been always m 
ambition to gain, their esteem and affection. ‘They tried to blast 
the public and private hopes of one not unambitious of, or unknown 
to public distinctions, or indifferent to individual esteem. They 
tried to make a monster of me, by that common rule of aggressors 


to anticipate attack by being assailants; and have d possi- 
bly that false pride would forbid me to expose themij@nd defend 
myself. f 


Thus goaded, I yet preserved so much self-possession as to seek 
for justice in a form that would have less exposed the parties con- 
cerned, than that to which I am now about to resort. By sending 
to Governor McDowell two copies of the following circular, I in- 
vited judicial investigation: 

Awnnapouis, December 5, 1843. 
His Excellency, James McDowe tt, Richmond: 


Sir: It is painful to me after all that has passed, to address to 
you this letter. 

I understand that in Richmond, as well as elsewhere, letters 
written by you have been circulated in order to make known the 
circumstances, which you state led to the separation of my wife 
from myself, and which were of course calculated to make me ap- 


PS3461 


6 


* 
pear the party offending. Although I have not been able to inform 
myself what were the contents of those letters, yet I must take it 
for granted that the matters which you have thought proper to 
mention in them, justified, in your opinion, the separation; and 
if so, they must justify, if not imperiously require, that measures 
should be taken to obtain a judicial investigation thereon. 

I write to inform you that in Maryland either the High Court of 
Chancery, or the county courts as courts of equity, have power to 
grant divorces, and to express my anxious desire that in behalf of 
your daughter you will take steps to have a judicial investigation 
of the subject.  ~ 

It is mot for me to say to you, how innocent I deem myself to 
have been of any act, which authorised the separation to be brought | 
about. All that I will allow myself here to say in regard thereto 
is, that I shall not shink from any investigation of my conduct and 
character: will throw no difficulties, technical or otherwise, in the 
way of a fulland fair investigation, or in any way delay a decision. 

Without such an investigation, suspicions, injurious it may well 

be supposed to both parties, will exist, and therefore the innocent 
party must most cruelly suffer. 
- Tearnestly request you to give an answer to this letter, so soon 
as you can, and let me know whether you will institute any such 
proceeding, or what course you would suggest, in order that all 
who have a right to feel an interest in the subject may be able to 
know the truth, and the whole truth. 

The Act of Assembly of Maryland, giving jurisdiction in such 
cases, will be found in the laws of December session, 1841, chap. 
262, which were forwarded to your department. 

Your obedient servant, FRANCIS THOMAS. 


I have never feared the utmost publicity on my own account. 
But I have preferred judicial investigation, because in courts proof 
may be taken under solemn obligations of oaths and affirmations, 
and in s@jfijseclusion from public scorn. I sought domestic trial. 
When thattemed to be hopeless, as the next best tribunal, I asked 
for judicial arbitrament. . I was reluctant to print and publish the 
abominations that must stain this paper. I respect too much and 
sincerely, the sanctity of the sex, I did love too fondly, even an 
unfaithful wife. I hugged, let me confess, too sensitively my own 
pride, to appeal to public determination, while any chance or hope, 
without that, remained of either private or judiciah scrutiny and 
decision. And I yield now to the necessities that constrain me, 
much more on account of respect for the rights and wishes of 
others, than from any considerations affecting myself alone. 

Finding that Gov. McDowell would not notice my invitation 
for an appeal, by all parties, to the justice of the courts, in a mo- 
ment of irritation, which may be perhaps pardoned, provoked at 
such a man as Col. Benton, gravely volunteering, as he did in his 
Texas letter, to teach the public, morals, I addressed to him, on the 
3rd day of May, 1844, a note, intended, if possible, to proyoke, if 


7 


nothing else, at least, the measure Gov. McDowell. had declined. 
_ Ashe gave me no reply, I sent to Gov. McDowell, in print, a copy 
of the same. ) 
» Several months have now elapsed, and no notice has been taken 
of this letter. Iam thus inevitably brought atlast to astage in this 
most painful affair, when all must see, that dishonored and dishonor- 
able life, or this appeal to public justice, are the only alternatives I 
have left. I have understood, and believe, the eminent and reckless 
defamers of whom I complain, deterred by the general abhorrence 
at their first main charges against me, now shelter themselves, and 
the woman they have undertaken to justify; under the more decent, 
as well as more compendious assertion, that I am only insane. I 
am, it is said, an honorable man, but labouring under a monoma- 
nia. My assailants are therefore not bound to notice me. _They 
would now leave me to the contempt of the world, instead of its 
execration. J was insatie, it is said, When married; went armed 
to the marriage couch; and with maniac suspicions took pistols 
to bed with my wife; designed to take the lives of some of her 
family. This story, fabricated by one with whom she was too inti- 
mate, and then put in circulation by her father, part of the shield 
they now throw around her, will be shown clearly to be false when- 
ever it assumes such a shape as to be entitled to further notice. 
Whether | am bereft of reason, will appear in the vindication of 
my much abused conduct, which I am with infinite reluctance 
about to undertake—disclosing not all the particulars, they could 
not be put on paper, but under the solemn injunction in a court of 
justice, to tell the whole truth—but such ontline of them as I flatter 
myself will carry conviction, that I am not so insane but that I 
ean be forced to convince all right-minded persons, that I haye 
been a true-hearted and faithful husband. 

Since Mrs. Thomas has joined in attempts to destroy me, I feel 
less reluctance to vindicate my own character at her expense, 
Far, however, from the intention of passing judgment against, or 
the most distant desire of establishing the actual guilt of one I 
have loved, the first wish of my heart still is, that her innocence, 
if possible, may be made clear. I wish to vindicate myself with- 
out condemning her. In this publication, therefore, I shall go.so. 
far only as my own vindication requires. Let her crafty counsel- 
lors, if they dare, afford the opportunity I seek, to unveil all I 
know, and all I have heard, and they shall look upon it all. Let 
those who craftily put aside the domestic forum, and haughtily 
dispise judicial appeal, now take their course. I am prepared for 
any alternative they or any of them may think proper to choose. 

In the spring of the year 1836, when I had been many years, 
and had attained to a respectable station in the House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States, boarding in the same house with 
Col. Benton and his family, the eldest daughter of Gov. McDowell, 
then a promising young girl of only fifteen years of age, was sent 


8 


to Washington in order to be put to boarding school at George- 
town. The young lady instead of going to school, for which 
purpose she was sent from home, spent the whole of te session of 
1836 which transpired after her arrival, and nearly the whole of 
the session of 1836-°7, in the mess at the same boarding house 
where we were; and at a very early period of our acquaintance, I 
quote her own words, told me, that ‘* she had set her cap for me.” 
Being then thirty-seven years of age, without having ever seriously 
turned my attention towards marriage, I answered, with perhaps 
too much plainness, but with perfect sincerity, ‘‘it will be time 
enough for you to think of such things two years hence, after you 
have completed your education.”’ In saying this, 1 spoke like an 
older brother, who, disliked mixed boarding houses for young 
ladies, would have spoken to an interesting and inexperienced 
sister. This, it is to begobserved, occurred after others of the 
mess had said to me, tha®€hey had discovered, that Col. and Mrs. 
Benton were anxious to make a match between their niece and 
myself. With this, I was flattered, and at that early day was 
perhaps more pleased than I was conscious of, with the prospects 
of such a destiny. _ Nevertheless, at her tender age, I felt it would 
be ungenerous to take advantage of the influence of her friends, 
and desired to see her go to her boarding school. Her uncle and 
family, however, had determined otherwise. I cannot lengthen 
this narrative by introducing proofs of their extreme solicitude, to 
prevent any occurrence that might unfavorably interpose with their 
design to promote our union. ‘These could be adduced in abun- 
dance, in the course of a courtship frequently interrupted on my 
part, and as often renewed by the immediate interposition of Col, 
Benton and her other friends. On one of these several occasions, 
when the niece, as she frequently did, made to me the declaration, 
“JT have set my cap for you,” and I gave the usual reply, her 
aunt, Mrs. Benton, encouraged the advance by remarking, that, 
at St. Louis, she ‘‘ had seen girls of fifteen married and leading 
sweet little children along the streets by the hand.” Col. Benton, 
too, repeatedly exercised his good offices to encourage and pro- 
mote the connexion, and remove all interfering obstacles. On 
one occasion, after his niece had returned to her father’s, in No- 
vember, 1839, he invited me to his office, and there urged me, 
with great earnestness, to visit her at her father’s, assuring me, 
that her parents, as well as the daughter, desired the match. I 
have now in possession three of his letters addressed to me, con- 
taining each a sentence or more devoted to this his favorite pur- 
pose, and urging me to go to Virginia and court his niece. No 
one was more conspicuous than Goy. and Mrs. McDowell at some 
stages of the affair, in the furthering, as far as they could, what 
seemed to be to their daughter and her friends a favorite purpose. 
Imputing, at the time, these proceedings to generous attempts to 
overcome my extreme diffidence, and guard against my want of 
addresss, they had the effect to create in me for the daughter and. 


9 


niece a most passionate love, and for her friends a devoted 
attachment. 

In the summer of 1841, all arrangements being made for the 
marriage, it took place on the eighth of June of that year, at Gov. 
McDowell’s residence in Virginia. After a few days, passed at 
her father’s residence, she was confided to me to be taken home to 
the residence provided for her in Maryland. Young and inex- 
perienced as Mrs. Thomas was, I solicited her sister and her 
cousins to accompany her to her new home. Not one of them 
could be prevailed upon to be of our party, and she came amongst 
strangers without a female friend, to whose society she had been 
accustomed; and no one of the many young ladies of her large 
family connexion, ever entered my dwelling during the five months 
she was an inmate. To repel one of the impudent charges after- 
wards made against me, that I had not furnished her with a suita- 
ble wardrobe, I must be excused here for declaring, that Gov. 
McDowell’s daughter came from her father’s house to mine, with 
a wardrobe so scanty as to afford me ample opportunity to gratify, 
as I did gratify, my affection for her, by adding liberally to its 
variety, exceeding her own wishes in that respect. 

During our stay at her father’s house, she told me of her having 
kissed a young man of her acquaintance at one of the parties we 
attended. I made no comment, but on our way home, in conse- 
quence of this communication, in connexion with other occurren- 
ces, I took care to make her understand she was about to be intro- 
duced into a society, where such familiarities were not customary. 
In the same conversation, I condemned the conduct of her cousin, 
which had come under my own observation in Virginia—a young 
man whom at her instance, I had, before our marriage and after 
our engagement, invited from his residence there, and established 
in Maryland. I had seen him attempt what I deemed gross 
liberties with a young lady, who was entitled to his particular re- 
spect. This slight circumstance is here mentioned because it had 
an influence in subsequent occurrences. <A few days after our 
establishment in Frederick, at the hotel, this person, who was at 
our wedding, returned to that place. Familiar, as he had a right 
to be in my family, I soon perceived an intimacy between him and 
Mrs. Thomas which I did not like, on account of my knowledge of 
his want of delicacy towards another lady, which I had communi- 
cated to her. There were apparently contrived interviews, out of 
my presence, which could not but attract my notice. Predisposed 
to put a favorable construction on her conduct, I could not cherish 
the slightest suspicion of her honor, and looked upon her partici- 
pation in these proceedings, as perhaps attempts to make me 
jealcus. After several disagreeable occurrences, which elicited 
no comment from me, on the 17th of July, one of those concerted 
interviews took place, of which I thought properto speak. After 

_ breakfast, on the morning of that day, she said to me, go up street 


and do not return till dinner-time, I intend to pass the forenoon in 
2 


10 


my bed-chamber. As soon as he became aware of my absence, 
he hastened to her, for when I returned unexpectedly in a few mo- 
ments, I found them together, in our parlor, at the hotel, alone, so 
seated that she changed her position as soon as IJ entered. hen 
we were alone, I cautioned her against what might be said by 
any casual observer of such apparent familiarity in my absence. 
My admonition was as kind as possible. It was received in a’ 
temper and with a tone of defiance. Shortly before this, when her 
cousin was riding in my carriage with us, and she amusing herself 
and him with a defect in my dress, I checked him for joining after- 
wards in her jeer, when she turned upon me with passion and said, 
‘< you are neither a gentleman nora man of truth.” This was the 
first harsh word that ever passed between us. At the moment I 
said nothing, and continued the conversation as if nothing unusual 
had passed. But subsequent occurrences convinced me, as I 
think they will others, that her defending him passionately from 
my reproof, proved, that even then he shared her strong regard, 
On the 22nd of July, we changed our residence, at her instance, 
from the hotel in the town to my house one mile and an half in the 
country. That evening we were together at a party in town, 
where we met her cousin, when her language and deportment 
concerning shim were more than ever remarkable. In the after- 
noon of the 23rd, as we were riding alone, and talking of the 
occurrences of the night before, she petulantly said to me, 
‘¢mind I have not yet broken my marriage vow,” to which my 
reply was, an exclamation of surprise and regret at her use of such 
language. Shortly after our return home, about twilight, I had 
reason to believe she had a clandestine interview with some one, 
and that night the suspicion was much strengthened. The next 
morning, after discovering additional proof that some one had 
been secretly at my residence, I did not hesitate to make known 
to her my apprehension of the fact. And then, for the first time, 
I told her that my confidence was impaired, and urged her with 
much earnestness to go with me to her friends. She protested © 
her innocence, confessing that her cousin had promised to come 
to my house the evening before, but declared that he had not 
come, or atleast she had not seen him. [ still insisting we should 
separate, she proposed, as a means of convincing me of her fidelity 
and attachment, that she would require him to leave that part of 
the country. Throughout the 24th and 25th, this painful contest 
continued, until at last I yielded to her entreaty. Harassed with 
doubts, and still incapable of believing what seemed to be ex- 
tremely improbable, I was not unwilling to submit the matter to 
further investigation. I had no positive proof to found an opinion 
upon ; the scene of the interview, if it occurred, was out of the 
house: one of the parties a woman but six weeks married, and 
the other a young relative, then living on my bounty. There was 
nothing in my own heart, that did not teach me to resist the con- 
clusions to which a chain of circumstances directly led, and to 


11 
enquire further before I acted into this unnatural affair. As soon 
as I consented to her arrangement, she went into an adjoining 
“room and forthwith brought to me the following letter, intended for 
him, the original of which in her hand-writing is now in my 
_ possession : . 





: ; Near Freperick, July 26. 
Sir, —Your unaccountably strange deportment and insulting 
looks to mé, have awakened my suspicions as to the proper degree 
of resect with which you regard my character, ‘and { have deter- 

¢@act:as an honorable woman should do—distinctly and 
lys-T'awillmot*again be insulted by your vile presence, and 
‘Yd; will, without delay, give some pretext to the people 






desire ‘Yah 

around 4g, arid leave this place. That any human being should 
dare entegigin wrong designs and polluting wishes to me, would 
be villainy4ideedy ‘but then that you, you who have been raised 


with me as a. brother, who have received from my father and hus- 
band too, the utrffost kindness—that you should entertain to me 
such designs, sucit polluting, such base designs, is a piece of vil- 
lainy, of rascality,: of baseness, unparallelled, unheard of. In 
twenty-four hours Jet me hear that the town is rid of such a mon- 
ster, such a piece of villainy as you are. And do not dare to in- 
sult me again by your detéstable presence. Guo off—never let me 
hear of such a creature of ingratitude, of pollution—such a being 
of iniquity, who would dare, for the gratification of the meanest, 
most paltry vanity, outrage by looks even, the virtuous feelings of 
a woman, and that woman the wife of a man who has befriended 
and assisted you—and that woman the daughter of an uncle, who 
has always shown you the utmost kindness and affection, and has 
endeavored to make you feel, for him and his children, the kindest 
and purest sentiments. Begone from this place—for earth itself 
hardly finds a parallel for you in baseness. Let me never hear of, 
and as for you, do not-dare to thrust yourself in any way upon 
me—such a wretch as you are. I have no pity, no compassion for 
you. S. C. P. Tuomas. 


Fondly anxious, as I then was, to distrust every suspicious cir- 
cumstance, I did not perceive in that letter, what now strikes me, 
and I think must every other reader, the pregnancy of its confes- 
sions. Blinded then by an infatuated attachment, I could not re- 
alize the truth of acknowledgments by her, that he had attempted 
her pollution. Remonstrating with her on the coarseness and gen- 
eral character of this letter, I indicated how I thought she might 
convey her wishes in different and more appropriate terms. She 
thereupon, without my presence, wrote the following letter, the 
original counterpart of which, in her hand writing, was left in my 
possession : 


_ “Your deportment to me since I was married, makes a further 
intercourse between us extremely painful. And as we cannot live 
in the same town, upon any other than the most cordial terms, 


12 


vithout exciting the criticism of all around, I desire you will leave 
nere at as early a period as posssible. I do this—I make this 
request after the calmest deliberation—and must insist, tha 
obey me without the least delay. The contents of this 
never be mentioned by me to any human being, and for the sz 
of both of our families and all concerned, I beg you will make a 
like resolution. Be well assured that no effort on your part can 
ever induce me to change this determination, so solemnly made. 
Any exertion by you, to renew our intercourse, will only oblige 
me to call in aid the counsel and advice of others. 4: Ak 

July 26, 1841. S. CyaP. Te; 


This was delivered to her cousin on the day it bears date, in 
Frederick, where he resided. It is but common justice to myself, 
to contradict here, a false charge which has been cisgulated, by 
impressing upon this, and I may add, upon all parts @f my narra- 
tive, that in no instance, under any excitement or provocation, did 
I ever threaten, coerce or abuse the woman who has caused me all 
my troubles. On this, the first occasion of decided difference, 
after two days contest, I submitted to her arrangement. Still be- 
lieving I should be compelled to place her amongst her friends, 
out of my immediate family, I nevertheless treated her without the 
slightest harshness or indecorum, which was avoidable. And 
much superior as her self-possession was to mine on all occasions, 
it was pre-eminently so on this, as must be obvious to all who 
read these recorded evidences of the transaction. His offence was 
charged upon him by her. And all that remains now, is to publish, 
as I proceed to do, the written evidences, in his hand writing, in 
my possession, of his prevarications and flight. 

On the same day he received Mrs. Thomas’ letter, I received 
from him the following, remarkable for rothing but the miserable 
hypocrisy by which it is characterised : 






Frepericktown, July 26th, 

Sir,—I received this morning the singular, and to me most in- 
explicable note of Mrs. Thomas. From the character of the note— 
its abruptness—offensiveness, and dictatorial style, I am constrained 
to believe, that it was suggested and dictated by you. It is proper, 
therefore, at all events so, that I should address myself to you. 

I have to ask, as an act of justice to myself, independent of all 
other considerations, that I may be put in possession of the facts 
which show that my ‘“‘deportment”’ towards Mrs. Thomas has been 
unkind, or unlike it has ever been. * I am at a loss to know in what 
it has consisted, and I desire therefore that I may be answered 
particularly. : 

. For to me, this abrupt termination of an intercourse, for the 
cause assigned, is not less painful, than utterly inexplicable. 

I must be pardoned, sir, for calling your attention to a sentiment 
in the conclusion of the note, signed by Mrs. Thomas—to which 
I should be wanting in proper spirit, if I did not reply. It is this 


13 


—‘‘Any exertion by you, to renew our intercourse, will only oblige 
me to call in aid the counsel and advice of others.”? Now, sir, I 
trust that I have too much honest pride, more self respect, and a 
better appreciation of the rights due to myself, than to seek or 
desire the renewal of our intercourse, terminated in this extraordt- 
mary manner. ‘Therimplied threat, and ungenerous insinuation, 
therefore, that if it were attempted—the “‘advice and counsel of 
others” would be called in ‘‘aid,”’ is wholly gratuitous. 

As to one other request in this extraordinary note—that I 
should leave town, and ‘‘obey”’ without the ‘‘least delay’’—I have 
only to say, that I acknowledge obedience to no person or persons 
under heaven, save my own parents. If I have answered this. 
note with unbecoming warmth, a sufficient reason will be found in 
wounded pride, and a feeling of indignation at this abrupt and 
unwarranted separation; concluded, without giving me to under- 
stand its exact cause, and without asking explanation of any mis- 
understanding, or unfounded suspicion that might be entertained. 

Your office shall be vacated as soon as I can make arrangements 
to leave it, which will be by Wednesday morning, at farthest. I 
hope that you will favor me with a reply to this note at your ear- 
liest convenience. Your ob’t. serv’t., 





By itself, this letter would not, perhaps, throw much light upon 
his character and conduct. But when contrasted with another 
letter, here inserted, written by him on the same day to a client 
in the county, which accidentally, near twelve months afterwards, 
came to my possession, I will permit the reader to draw his own 
conclusions : 


FREDERICKTOWN, July 26th, 1841. 


My Dear Sir,—Circumstances of a private nature imperatively 
require that I should return to Virginia, with the expectation of not 
again returning to Frederick. I would, therefore, be obliged to you, 
if you would send by letter, as soon as you can conveniently, the 
fee due to me, in the case subinitted for a written opinion. TI shall 
leave Frederick the latter part of this week, and if you cannot 
forward it in time for me, send it to this office any how, and Mr. 
Rigney will forward it to my direction in Washington, where I 
Shall be detained a few days. I am sorry to trouble you, and 
* would not do so under other circumstances. 

Yrs. with much respect, 


In her letter to him was his first intimation that there was any 
distrust of his misconduct; unless he had been before apprised of 
it by her in secret interview. And yet, immediately upon the re- 
ceipt of her letter, he makes ready to comply with her request. 
Upon receiving his impertinent letter to me, I went to Frederick, 
and found him making preparations to go. I said little more but 
that he must not only leave the town, but commanded him to do so 
in absolute silence, as to the cause of his going, He agreed to go 













14 
as I required, and on the 29th did leave the State of land, 
and joined Col. Benton and his family in Washington, 
Although I had so Jar yielded to her entreaties as to adopt her 
plan for getting rid of her cousin, of whom she said to m en I 
was leaving home for that purpose, ‘‘beat him Mr. Thomas, but 


dont kill him,”’ I still persisted in my determination to take her 
home to her family, and should probably have had the heart to 
firmly but mildly execute my purpose, if it had not been that within 
afew days she gave me to understand she bore the fruit of our 
marriage, as would appear in the course of nature; and insisted 
with great earnestness, that time would show this had been her 
condition a month before. ‘Then it was that affection, struggling 
with suspicions, and ignorant as I was on such subjects, believing 
that conception could not be the result of promiscuous intercourse, 
I postponed the intention of taking her home, and undertook to 
learn, if possible, the true character of the woman I had married. 
These thoughts led me to desire to look into certain letters, once 
offered for my perusal by Mrs. Benton, and I requested Mrs. 
Thomas to get them from her aunt, which was done—copies of 
them are here inserted : 


Extract from the letter of Mrs. Benton, which accompanied the 
following letters when fowarded to her niece, dated 


Wasuincton Ciry, D. C., August 13th, 1841. 
My Dear Sally,—Your note of the 11th was received yesterday. 
I send the letters as desired. It is well if you want them, that 
you wrote for them at once, as I was on the point of destroying 
them as things useless, that had only served to produce disagreea- 
ble feelings, every token of which I wanted buried in oblivion. 
Do make 1 my regards acceptable to your husband, and accept for 
yourself the earnest affection of your Aunt Benton. 


Mrs. C. P. McD. Thomas. 


The gvilouing are the letters enclosed under frank from Col. Ben- 
ton, with names omitted: 








To Miss Sally McDowell,—I have been minutely informed of 
the serious flirtation that you carried on with my husband last 
winter, and I would not now condescend to write to you on the 
subject, were it not for the sake of those to whom you are con- 
nected, to spare the feelings of your parents, to whom I at first 
thought I would appeal, I now write to you, and do most sol- 
emnly assure you, that all intercourse between you and 
must cease, or you will be made to regret it as long as you live. 
I know you well Miss McDowell. Isaw you make use of every 
art and blandishment to force the attention of single gentlemen ; 
and finding you could not succeed, you followed, flattered and ca- 
ressed married men, until you coerced their attentions. ‘The first 








15 





object of your pursuit was Mr. Never can I forget the ex- 
pression of your countenance, when you told me one day that you 
thought Mr. - would be mighty glad to hear that his wife was 
dead, so that he could offer you his hand. Mr. left Mr. 
, and then you commenced your allurements against 
[my husband.] I have often, indeed I may say daily, seen you 
watch my husband’s return from the fly out to meet him, and 
two or three times during the day, whenever you saw him enter 
the house, sieze both his hands, and if you thought no person was 
present, pay him the most extravagant compliments—indeed it 
appeared to me that it was quite difficult for to keep you out 
of his arms whenever he met you. The morning of the day I first 
left Washington city last year with » when any person of the 
least delicacy would have supposed that my husband and self de- 
sired to be alone, as we were to be separated for some months, 
you came into our room and annoyed me most to death, by hang- 
ing around in the most indelicate manner. You followed us 
down to the cars, and as I was entering one of them after my hus- 
band, you rudely pushed me back and dashed yourself on the seat 
by , in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of my 
getting nearhim. I then indignantly told you that you had better 
run off with You replied with the most shameless effron- 
tery, that it was his place to run off with you; but why attempt 
to recapitulate scenes that would fill a volume, could the high 
souled, noble-minded Col. Benton or Mrs. Benton have seen the 
thousandth part of your levity of conduct, to call it by the gentlest 
name, and which you had the consummate art to conceal from them, 
they could not help thinking that you were a most improper compan- 
ion for their interesting daughters. Your conduct last winter, was 
such as to make you feel the profoundest gratitude towards 
for his forbearance. Few men on earth in the meridian of life, 
handsome and ardent in their feelings like my good husband is, 
could have resisted your allurements. You speculated largely on 
the prospects of my death last winter, when you heard of the dread- 
ful malady which raged in Let me tell you Miss Mc- 
Dowell, had I ten thousand lives, and was to lose them all, it 
would be of no benefit to you. Had you the wealth of worlds for 
your dower, (and did my husband admire you, as I know he does 
not,) I am confident has too much respect for himself 
to marry you. You have said that — promised you that 
he would not take me to Washington city this winter. You well 
knew when you made that assertion, that it was an untruth. 

Now, Miss McDowell, I wish you t6 inform me what course.you 
intend to take as it respects this letter, if you intend to let my hus- 
band see it, and make another effort to the many you have made in 
vain, to destroy our domestic happiness, I will have this letter pub- 
lished, and let the world see a touch of the times in Washington 
city. If on the contrary you will permit prudence to guide you, 
let all intercourse drop between you and my husband, return me 





















































16 


by letter his picture and lock of hair, let no third person hea 
see this letter, then, and not untill then, shall this subject b be dro 
forever. You have trifled too long with my feelings, I cannot b 
it any longer. Young and lovely as my angelic daughter was, 
you took the greatest delight i in wounding her feelings. ‘T e very 

admiration (altough but a child,) she excited appeared like worm- 

wood to your soul, and for the last few weeks we stayed in Wash- 

ington city, you sought every opportunity of annoying and dis-. 
tressing that gentle being, whose precocious mind and great lovli-. 
ness of person, made you feel your own littleness, although she 
was but ——- years old, and you had at the least the appearance 
of a well grown woman of twenty. You had better reflect well 
before you determine what to do with this letter. I am prepared 
for the worst, and I well know, should it become public, (which 
most certainly shall be the case if I ever hear of a third person see- 
ing it,) who will be thought in the right. I ask of you my hus- 
band’s picture, his lock of hair, and that all intercouse shall cease 
between you. Comply with this, and I will never even mention 
your name again. Refuse my request, and you will soon find what 
a woman can do to save a husband she fondly, dearly loves 
from » 1 will not say what. 


















To Mrs. Benton,—In reply to your note just received, I must 
frankly say, that as far as your statements went of what you know of 
Miss McDowell’s conduct on the painful subject referred to, I have 
not a doubt. Miss McDowell was informed by myself, (which I 
mentioned in my letter,) that her great freedom with my husband 
was disagreeable to me; her reply to me was as insolent as it 
could be, and she did not change her conduct to . And 
this is the young lady you require me to make an apology to; 
one who ever treated me with the most pointed dislike, from the 
first moment [ ever saw her. You may enclose the letter you 
mention to my dear husband; you may again give the christian 
evidence of your feelings towards me, by making a difficulty be- 
tween my husband and myself. You have the power to do so, 
and I expect not nor do I ask for mercy from Mrs. Benton; but 
ten thousand deaths would I die before 1 would make an acknow- 
ledgment to her who has ever been my enemy. My family, my 
comnexions, are as respectable and as good as yours ever were; 
and I am not to be brow-beaten and threatened, not even by the 
wife of the noble, glorious Col. Benton. I saidfall I could say, 
when I told you, that I deeply regretted ever having written the 
letter. If that will not satisfy you, do your worst. After an 
absence of many months from my husband-=months of suffering 
illness, you did not permit me to enjoy his society forty-eight 
hours, before you made a complaint to him, that you well knew 
would displease him with me. May God forgive you for it Mrs. 
Benton. Did your matchless husband know of your cruel course 
towards me, I am confident that he would disapprove of it; but 








17 


before I could: inform a-husband of any thing to a wife’s disad- 
vantage, I would thnik I deserved the withering blight of Heaven, 
for trying to injure that which God had. joined together, By our 
merciful Heavenly Father, in another and better world, we will 
both be judged, and. profession will then be discovered is not 
principle. ; 

Farewell forever Mrs. Benton, for the sake of Col. Benton, the 
great, the good Col. Benton, and your dear children; may every 
happiness attend you.” 











““Wasnineton City, March 28. 


Mrs. Benton,—¥or many reasons I regret addressing to Miss 
McDowell, the letter you mention in your last epistle tome. Not 
wishing to wound your feelings, (a kindness which you have been 
very far from extending to me,) I never informed you of the crue’ 
manner in which my dear departed daughter and myself were per- 
secuted by Miss McDowell, for a long time before I left this city 
Not even to my husband, did I impart that conduct of Miss 
McDowell, which annoyed so much our little daughter—from the 
profound respect I felt for your truly great husband and yourself, 
I hoped, by at first speaking to your niece herself, urging her to 
change her conduct towards me, that she would at least let me 
alone. Finding that every thing I said to her only made her 
more determined in her previous course, I addressed that letter to 


her, which I now very much regret ever sending. 
9 








“Wasuineton Crry, December 11, 1839. 


To Mrs. Benton,—Ever as prompt to acknowledge a fault as 
to resent an injury, I now, Mrs. Benton, through you, most’ sin- 
cerely ask the foregiveness of your niece, Miss McDowell, for the 
letter that I once addressed to her, in which I done her very great 
injustice. ‘The only apology that I can offer, is, that, as it respects 
Miss McDowell, I have been cruelly deceived by one, who, I 
thought, was bound to me by every tie of gratitude and friendship. 

Respectfully yours, a 





— 


In the summer of 1840, after my engagement with her niece, 
Mrs. Benton placed in my hands for perusal these letters. They 
bear the signature of a lady, whose name I will not, for obvious 
reasons, introduce into this.narrative, The motive which led Mrs. 
Benton to offer them to my perusal, I have never understood. Like 
the letter last before mentioned, however, they seem to have come 
providentiaily to my knowledge. When offered to me in 1840, I 
refused toread them. Perceiving that they turned upon some con- 
troversy, the character of which I did not then clearly apprehend, 
between Miss McDowell and the lady who wrote them; I was too 
much in love to have any wish to look into what I supposed had 
been an unpleasant,but wholly unimportant correspondence. When 
I handed them again to Mrs. Benton, she called my attention to 


3 


18 


the last letter in the series, which I read, and then said, madam, I 
know your niece, and need no such certificate of her character. 
She insisted I should take the letters with me to my lodgings, . 
which was done, and they were returned to her the next morning, 
without being read. Whatever may have been Mrs. Benton’s 
motive for handing to me those letters, or for selecting for that 
purpose, doubtless under the direction of a cunning adviser, the 
time she did, three years after the first of these letters were written, 
when I was on my way home after having entered into an engage- 
ment of marriage with her niece, full of joyous anticipations; there 
can be no doubt that, no human agency, no persuasion, no covert 
appeals to my gallantry or generosity, could have led me delibe- 
rately to court and marry any woman to whom sucha letter as this 
first letter, had ever been addressed, if that fact had come to my 
knowledge before the courtship had commenced. ‘These letters, 
it will be perceived, are without date. Facts are known to me 
that afford the means to fix the period near which they were seve- 
rally written. The writer of them was in Washington in 1836, 
when Miss McDowell first came to that city. She was not in 
Washington during the sessions of 1836-7. The first letter bears 
therefore, evidence on its face, that it was written some time du- 
ring the last named period, or after the close of that session in the 
spring of 1837. The writer was extremely jealous of Miss Mc- 
Dowell’s conduct towards her husband as displayed in her pre- 
sence. This feeling she did not conceal. She left Washington 
reluctantly, before the session of 1836 was closed. While absent, 
information is communicated to her by some calm observer of the 
scene, that leads her to address to the object of her jealousy this 
strong remonstrance. I feel the full delicacy of this part of my 
narrative, not only because a respectable lady is concerned, but 
from another cause appealing still more strongly to my forbear- 
ance. I take leave of these letters without the comment the 

might properly elicit. There is no reason, however, why I should 
not decidedly condemn the conduct of Mrs. Benton, in concealin 

from me for three years after it was written, (while she and Cob 
Benton and her other friends, were using every means in their 
power to bring about my marriage,) the first letter in this series, 
which so strongly involves the conduct and character of her niece. 
That Mrs. Benton appreciated the importance of this letter, will 
appear from the copies of the two letters here published, addressed 
to Mrs. Benton herself by the same lady, the originals of which 
are in my possession. From them we learn how active and anx- 
ious she was to produce a retraction of the charges made. For 
which purpose it would seem, she was obliged to call to her aid the 
husband, to compel an unwilling wife to absolve her niece. Very 
shortly after these letters were received, I set out on the election- 
eering tour, which preceded my election as Governor of the State 
of Maryland, intending, on my return, to take Mrs. Thomas to her 
father’s, in pursuance of a promise made to her mother at the time 


19 


of my marriage, and for a season of absence from home, my mind 
was absorbed with other than domestic objects. 

The frightful and disgusting details I am next obliged to expose 
to public animadversion, I think proper to give as much as possi- 
ble in the very language of all the parties to them, as well for 
the purpose of presenting the precise facts, as for relieving myself 
from the torment of any particular statement of my own. 

I returned in the course of my electioneering tour, and passed 
a night at my father’s with my wife, about the 29th of September. 
The next day, happening to be in the office of a physician in Fred- 
erick, he inquired how is Mrs. Thomas? My answer was, she is 
very well. To my great surprise, he asked, did you not hear of 
the accident that happened to her on the 21st of September? I 
said, no sir. He went on to say, an accident had happened to 
her on that day, which her attending physician said, was a case of 
eight weeks. In the course of a conversation on other subjects, 
he repeated, the Doctor says it was a case of eight weeks. Of 
which communication, whatever my feelings at the moment were, 
I took no other notice, than to rejoin, I suppose Mrs. Thomas did 
not like to speak with me on such a subject. I must acknowledge, 
however, that the shocking feelings which immediately followed 
my marriage, and were renewed on the 23rd of July, recurred at 
this time with infinite force, from the evident coincidence of their 
being just eight weeks between the occurrence of the 23rd of 
July, and the accident of the 21st of September, which directly 
conflicted with her own statement in August preceding, the truth 
_of which she appealed to time to prove. With a heavy heart I 

completed my electioneering tour, going again to my father’s, on 
the day after the election. During’ the several weeks of my ab- 
sence, Mrs. Thomas had passed part of the time with one of my 
relations, living near Charlestown, in Virginia, and part of it with 
other members of my family, in Maryland. While in my father’s 
house, I subdued my feelings so far, as not to say one word upon 
what was agonizing to me. Within a day or two, I took Mrs. 
Thomas to our home, near Frederick. And then immediately 
communed with her of the deep-seated anxiety which the commu- 
nication of the physician in Frederick, had awakened. My tone, 
language, and manner, were as delicate as they could be, consist- 
ently, with my desire to be understood. With this guard upon 
my feélings, I intimated to her my distress, at the before mentioned 
coincidence, of the eight weeks between the 23rd of July and the 
21st of September, and reminding her of her own statement in 
August, appealed to her to say, what had produced the accident. 
Inasmuch as she had before taken pains to satisfy me, that the 
change in her situation, made known to me early in August, had 
preceded the 23rd of July by some weeks, as would appear, if I 
would but wait until she became a mother, I was desirous of ascer- 
taining whether the occurrence was truly accidental. It is painfnl 
to confess, that I could be brought to entertain such thoughts, but 


20 


it is due to truth to make the acknowledgement. And it was 
equally painful to me, that she to whom they were divulged, would 
not voluntarily separate. For some time her persisting’ answer 
was, that she could not tell what had caused it: but before our 
conversation on the painful subject closed, she stated, to my utter 
astonishment and incredulity, she had procured the means to pro- 
duce it at Charlestown. What, said I, took drops? No, she re- 
plied, it was a powder. Incapable of believing any such statement, 
I, insisting upon testing the truth of it by further enquiry as to 
the agents used to procure such means, said to her, did you ém- 
ploy the servants for that purpose, or obtain it in person yourself? 
To these enquiries she gave no satisfactory answer. They were 
renewed the next day, but not in a manner to extort an answer. 
Throughout all these scenes, her manner was perfectly self-pos- 
sessed and collected, which made me incredulous. In this state 
of our feelings, she varied her first confession, by saying tnat the 
drug had been furnished by another, whom she named. My ex- 
clamation was, great God do you know what you are saying, it is 
a penitentiary offnnce! Upon which she said, I have not told the 
truth, I do not know what caused it. The utter incongruity of 
these monstrous statements, with what I had thought of her and 
her friends, and the improbability, as I thought, of the person 
named being her agent, bewildered and confounded me. ys 
I recurred with more earnestness than ever to my entreaties, 
that she would go with me to her family, promising that if she 
would go, what had occurred should never transpire. TI felt the 
utmost horror of exposing her, of being connected myself, or of 
mixing any of the members of my own unsullied family before 
the public, with this monstrous transaction; and desired, even if 
her statements were true, to separate and bury the whole in obli- 
vion, At the time of my marriage, I had promised Mrs. McDowell 
to bring her daughter to her on a visit, as soon as the election was 
over. Of this engagement I reminded Mrs. ‘Thomas, and‘said it 
would be a sufficient excuse for her going home, without exciting 
suspicion. She persisted in refusing to go, and stated, what I 
cannot but think remarkable, that during my absence, her mother 
had released her from the engagement to visit her father’s family, 
and advised her not to come home. Finding all my entreaties 
vain, during several days of expostulation, 1 gave up endeavor- 
ing to prevail upon Mrs. Thomas to go, and substituted attempts 
to bring her mother to my residence, in which I was altogether 
unsuccessful. During all the months of November and December, 
I was in vain entreating her mother, through letters from her 
daughter and myself, to come to Maryland. And it isa fact, 
which I have since ascertained, that at this time Gov. McDowell 
was perfectly aware of the reason why I had compelled his ne- 
_ phew to leave my neighborhood, and return to his. 
« Long after this, in March 1842, subsequent to events at Anna- 
polis and Baltimore hereafter {o be detailed, and after many of my 


21 


‘open hearted confidential letters were written, which Col, Benton 
and Gov. McDowell shamefully exposed, hideous circumstances 
which Iam not at liberty to'withhold, came to my knowledge. I 
must now indicate them, in order to give the true character of the 
accident of the 21st of September. My information is derived 
from sources beyond the reach of refutation or reproach. But as 
my informants are ladies they shall not be named, unless my perse- 
cutors think proper to put them on their oaths, in any judicial pro- 
ceeding they may desire to dissolve my marriage. ‘Then, though 
it may be a terrible alternative, as one of them in her written state- 
ment now before me declares, they will appear and tell the whole 
truth. 

On that night of the 21st of September Mrs. Thomas slept in 
aroom with another lady, in different beds. During the night the 
lady was awakened by the groans and complaints of Mrs. Tho- 
mas. Kindly enquiring to as the cause and offering her assistance 
for relief, she was told, in substance, by Mrs. Thomas, it is only 
the toothache, to which I am accustomed, go to sleep, I know how 
‘to manage it. I recoil from setting forth the details of what fol- 
lowed, unless judicially compelled to do it. The written evidence 
lies now before me of what I must indicate, but I shall do so with 
as much regard to delicacy as possible. In brief then the embryo 
-was found next morning, under the head of the bed wrapped in 
her under clothing. And so far was concealment carried, that af- 
ter washing, and particularly the feet in cold water; when left alone 
in the room in the morning, she dressed and prepared to descend 
‘to the breakfast table as if nothing had happened, and was only 
prevented by the remonstances of a lady who learned what had 
occurred. Itis wholly unnecessary to add a comment. Let oth- 
ers decide whether it is not calculated to aggravate the feelings 
with which I have been harrassed. ‘This occurrence, in itself so 
revolting, necessarily and effectually destroyed the means of test- 
‘ing the truth of her declaration made in August,when she appealed 
{to time to prove the date of her condition. 

At this stage of my narrative, it would be proper to introduce 
another most disgusting affair, if I was not unwilling to yield legal 
advantages that would be taken to my prejudice. For it is no 
small aggravation to my misfortunes, that I am forced to deal with 
one of the meanest and lowest of mankind, ready to avail himself 
of any advantage to protect himself, and distort and stifle the truth. 
A man who would be capable of adopting legal form of proceed- 
ing, so as to exclude Mrs. Thomas and myself from being wit- 
nesses, while he, by perjury, could exonorate himself from respon- 
sibility for that fiend-like conduct, which has caused humiliating 
misfortune to a woman, and deep mortification and misery to two 
large and respectable family connexions. But for this, and: my 
unwillingness to trespass unnecessarily on the feelings of one I 
have always been reluctant to wound, justice to myself would lead 
me to disclose the particulars of another affair before we went to 


22 


Annapolis. Whenever Gov. McDowell, however, will institute 
judicial proceedings, in which all parties can be heard and be 
placed upon a perfect equality, what is here omitted, will be, if 
he desires it, fully manifested. In the meanwhile, I will confine 
myself to the declaration, that I have neither written nor spoken 
anything in relation to the case here alluded to, that I cannot 
clearly prove. To this solemn averment I now add, that the 
affair, which appeared to me absolutely incredible, was rendered 
altogether probable by information long afterwards obtained. That 
information will not here be detailed. If properly called for by 
the parties concerned, it will be given in the pérfect confidence 
that this case alone made it indispensable to my peace of mine 
for me to confer, as I undertook to do, with the parents of Mrs. 
Thomas. For the publicity vulgarly given to the subject of that 
conference, her friends and not I or my friends are responsible. 

During the whole months of November and December, I sub- 
mitted to harrowing apprehensions, in the constant expectation, 
that Mrs. McDowell would accept the invitation she had received 
and come to my residence. Ignorant, however, of the character 
of the woman I had married, I constantly flattered myself, that the 
ladies of her family might possibly be able to explain away all 
my doubts. I was resolved there should be a domestic trial; that 
public scandal should be avoided; and that, if neither Mrs. 
McDowell nor Mrs. Benton could remove,every vestige of my 
mistrusts, there should be a final separation between Mrs. Thomas 
and myself. As she persisted in the denial of what I was com- 
pelled to affirm, looking to the future investigation, the following 
papers were signed between us on the day they severally bear 
date, the originals of which are now in my possession, in her hand- 
writing and in mine: 


‘¢ Between the third and seventh day of November, 1841, I have 
reason to believe, that had, with my wife, one interview, 
at least of a most exceptionable character, and between the 22nd 
and 27th days of the same month, of the same year, I have reason 
to believe, that the same man, had, at least one other improper 
interview with my wife. But in consideration of circumstances, 
not here to be mentioned, I am willing to wait coming events, that 
it may be seen clearly, how far those opinions of mine are un- 
founded. Dec. 2, 1841. Francis THOMAS. 








I, too, am. willing to let the justice and correctness of the above . 
opinions be tested by future events. 
Dec. 2, 1841. S. C. P. Tuomas. 


Near Freperick, Dec. 30, 1841. . 


I am most reluctantly compelled again to charge my wife with 
being untrue, in that she had unlawful intercourse with another on 
18th and 27th December, 1841. Francis THOMAS. 


23 


I again, as on former occasions, strenuously deny the above 
charge—but still am willing to say, that I have seen the above, 
written on the 30th of December, 1841, and have been told at the 
same time, by the writer of it, ‘‘ that he means to use it seriously.”” 


J S. C. P. Tuomas. 
Near Frederick, Thursday, Dec. 30, 1844.” 


I was too much deluded by my own passions, and confused in 
mind by another cause, of which I do not propose to treat in this 
statement, to perceive then what must strike every reader, that a 
virtuous woman, instead of obstinately persisting to remain in my 
house, ought, under such circumstances, to have been eager to seize 
my offer to take her to her family, especially as I promised to 

bring her back as soon as her innocence should be established. 

On the 3rd day of January, 1842, we left my home near Fre- 
derick, and repaired to Annapolis, where I was to reside during 
my Gubernatorial term. Here, in order to make perfectly intelli- 
gible what I am about to state, it is necessary to advert to infor- 
mation communicated to me in Virginia, after the rencounter with 
Gov. MoDowell, at Staunton, in April, 1843, of which I shall 
presently speak. There, for the first time, amongst other impu- 
tations, I heard that Gov. McDowell had, in a letter written from 
Washington, early in February, 1842, charged, that I had taken 
pistols to bed with me the night of my marriage, and had said one 
was for the father and the other for the brother of his daughter. 
He alleged, that this absurd charge (for it is superfluous to add 
that it is not true) had been derived from his daughter. As soon 
as I heard of this charge in Virginia, I remarked at once, that, 
taken together with other circumstances previvusly known to me, 
it palpably indicated a state of things still further sanctioning all 
Ihad done. I did take pistols with me when I went to be married, 
for reasons not discreditable to me, and for which I am responsible 
to no one, but which may appear if Co]. Benton thinks proper to 
call for the publication of our correspondence, in the month of 
March, 1841. These pistols were in a trunk in the tavern I 
stopped at in Lexington, and never in the house of Gov. McDowell. 
Finding that Mrs. Thomas was aware I had them with me, know- 
ing her information was not derived from me, and hearing, that 
she pretended they had been seen by her in her father’s house, it 
was very natural for me to conclude her information had been de- 
rived under circumstances, and from a source of which she was 
unwilling to speak. There was only one person except myself, 
from whom she could possibly have received her information. 
This young man alone knew I had pistols with me, and to him I 
had made jocularly the remark attributed to me by Gov. McDowell 
as derived from his daughter—one of them will do for her father 
and one for her brother. 

These remarkable facts necessarily recalled to my recollection 
some incidents at Annapolis, on the night of my arrival there ia. 


, 


24 
January 1842. During that night, the young man with whom I 


had spoken concerning these pistols, was at the Government 
House, and was, as I am prepared to prove by incontrovertible 
testimony, in the private chainbers of that dwelling with Mrsy 


Thomas for a long time, while I was sitting with other company 
then present in the parlour. After my return from Virginia where 
the information above mentioned had been received, in speaking 
of it with the other circumstances here detailed to a friend, TJearn- 
ed from him, for the first time, that the same young man had been 
seen, within forty-eight hours after the arrival of Mrs. Thomas in 
Maryland, immediately after our wedding, on two several occa~ 
sions, sitting alone with her in a room, during my absence, in a 
most indelicate and improper posture. These circumstances af- 
ford additional evidence to every candid and intelligent reader, 
that I had good reason for persisting that Mrs. ‘Thomas should 
return to her friends. 

Having already said enough to justify the course I have persu- 
ed, and being unwilling to wound unnecessarily the feelings of 
those who have shown no respect for mine, I shall’ not at present 
disclose the circumstances which preceded, and were attendant 
upon the transaction, in the residence of Gov. McDowell on the 
16th of July, 1842. Nor will I at this time make public, in this 
form, the facts in another case, which came to my knowledge at my 
own residence on the 12th and 13th of August 1841. In both in- 
stances what is known to me leads to conclusions, at which my 
whole soul even now revolts. Whenever Gov. McDowell will 
accept my challenge, and bring this hideous controversy properly 
before a judieial tribunal, on an application for divorce, I am pre- 
_ pared to disclose, under the solemn obligations of an oath, all T 
know on the subjects here alluded to, and to afford other parties 
concerned ample opportunity to exonerate themselves from partic- 
ipation, as principals or advisers, in the attempt in one instance, 
and the perpetration in the other of the highest crimes known to 
the law. iy, Oe 

On the 5th of January, Mrs. Benton came to Annapolis to wit- 
ness my inauguration. As her presence afforded a favorable op- 
portunity for that domestic investigation which I had long been 
bent upon, I desired Mrs. Thomas to make known to her aunt, 
the causes of our domestic difficulties. Finding, after Mrs. Ben- 
ton had been there some time, that my request had not'been com- 
plied with, I insisted that the communication should be made, and 
prevailed upon Mrs. Thomas to go to her aunt’s bed chamber for 
that purpose. After they had been some time together Mrs. Ben- 
ton came down stairs to the parlour where I was seated, and ‘said 
soon after she entered: ‘‘Well, Mr. Thomas your peace of mind 
is gone forever. Thank God I have always been true tomy hus- 
band! We thought we had married Sally to a gentleman of high 
character and of high station, and all was safe.” I have quoted 
her words precisely. Madam, said I, did your niece tell you 


2h 


every thing? 1 do not know, was her reply, but she told me & 
good deal. I asked, did she mention to you the accident in Sep- 
tember. She said no. I then said, Madam it is a subject upon 
which you and I cannot converse. Being encouraged by her to 
proceed, I then said that an accident had happened to her niece 
on the 21st of September, during my absence, and that after my 
return she had told me that she had taken means to produce it. 
Mrs. Benton much shocked, immediately left the room. After 
some time she returned and exclaimed, *‘ Mr. Thomas why did you 
not send Sally immediately home to her friends?””. I replied I did 
not know how to act; she would not consent to leave me. And 
I had not the heart to send her away by force, while there was 
any uncertainty as to her guilt. And added, she is now, Mrs. 
Benton, in your chamber under your protection, and must never 
return to mine. After further conversation Mrs. Benton again 
went up stairs. When she returned, her little daughter who was 
with her said to me, Mr. Thomas cousin Sally wishes to see you. 
I went to Mrs. Benton’s chamber where Mrs. Thomas was. 
There with tears and entreaties she begged me to abandon my 
purpose, of sending her to her parents for explanation. Struggling 
with my feelings, I resisted her importunities, and on my return- 
ing to the room where I had left Mrs. Benton, she went up stairs 
and soon returned again. After some conversation between us, 
Mrs. Benton left me and went up stairs, and some time afterwards 
the following note, addressed to me, was received : 


“You will not write to my uncle or Doctor Buckler yourself, but 
advise me to go to Washington. Such being your oprnion on this 
subject, will it not be better for you to take me to Washington 
yourself, where I can stay until my father can come for me. If I 
must leave your house, you are the fit person to give me up to 
my friends; and will be less apt to condemn your own acts than 
the acts of others. . 

My aunt says, as you will not write for any of my friends but 
uncle Benton, she is unwilling he should take the whole responsi- 
bility of coming to your house and taking me away. But if you 
are determined to put we away, if you will take me to her house, 
she will receive me, believing as she does from her inmost soul} 
that Iam pure. I do, as God is my judge. 

My note may seem cold and harsh, my feelings are still warm 
for you, and I would make any sacrifice almost to make you happy: 
And while over and over again I declare in the most solemn man- 
ner, that all your charges are unfounded, I still believe, and that 
belief itself keeps alive all my warmest feelings, that you would 
act kindly if you thought you could, and that what you do is not 
from cold-blooded wantonness, but a supposition that you are ac- 
ting in the right. S. C. P. THomas. 

Aunt Benton says she would like an answer before she sends her 
letter to,the post office. if 

4 Jan. 5, 1842. Government House:” 


26 


This note, evidently the joint production of the aunt and niece, 
containing as it does the most solemn assurances of its tr th, al- 
most shook my purpose. I replied to it, however, briefly, con- 
senting to go with them to Washington, and retired to bed in the 
expectation we should all, in the morning, go to Washington. 
Along time after I had been abed, Mrs. Thomas came to me from 
her aunt’s chamber, and entreated permission to remain. The next 
morning Mrs. Benton refused to take her niece with her to Wash- 
ington, but yielded to my urgency to write to the parents to come 
to their daughter. Accordingly, towards the latter part of January, 
Gov. and Mrs. McDowell, passing by the road leading to Annapo- 
lis, went to Washington, and having had interviews with Col. and 
Mrs. Benton, they repaired to Baltimore and _ sent their near con- 
nexion, the Rev. Dr. Breckenridge to Annapolis for Mrs. Thomas. 
She refused to accompany her uncle to Baltimore. To his inquiry 
of me, whether Mrs. Thomas could go to her parents, or they 
could come to her, I said either arrangement will be agreeable to 
me. Dr. Breckenridge returned to Baltimore, and immediately 
afterwards the following letter was received: 


‘‘BaLtrmore, January 19, 1842, 

My Dear Sally,—-Since your uncle Breckenridge’s return from 
Annapolis on yesterday, your mother and myself have given the 
best reflection of which we were capable, to every aspect of the 
subject involved in his trip, and have come to the conclusion, that 
it is our imperative duty to see you ourselves, that we may confer 
with you freely and unreservedly, and. further, in view of all the 
circumstances, that it is best we should see, and so confer with - 
you elsewhere, than at Mr. Thomas’ house. 

We, therefore, request that you will, with Mr. Thomas’ permis- 
sion, visit us here only for a few days, and then to return, 

If practicable, we hope that you can do this in the morning’s 
ears. But if you cannot, upon such hasty notice, meet with any 
suitable friend to accompany you, or if you prefer any other time, 
or any other arrangement for coming up, let us know by letter in 
the morning, and Mr. Breckenridge or some other relation will go 
to Annapolis at any time you may appoint, to receive and attend 
you here. 

I need add no more, than the renewed avowal of my unaltered | 
conviction of your innocence, with the renewed expression of my 
hope, also, that God will not leave you to suffer from the distem- 
pered suspicions that are directed against you, 

' As ever, your confiding and devoted Father, 
" Jas. McDowe tt, 
© Will my child read prayerfully St, Luke, 12 chap.” 


“With the aid of this promise of her father, that she should re- 
turn in a few days, I was enabled to prevail upon Mrs. Thomas to 
go to Baltimore, under the protection of a gentleman of my ac- 
quaintance. At parting, she asked me if I would take her back 


& 


27 


if her father explained every thing? I replied, certainly; go to 
your parents, tell them every thing, if they send you back, I will 
most cheerfully receive you; if they conclude to take you to Vir- 
ginia, and I am left in peace, nothing shall make me tell why you 
left here. Hearing nothing from her or them for five days, I went 
to Baltimore, and sought an interview with Mrs. Thomas, which 
was granted, at her uncle Breckenridge’s, in the presence of her 
parents. I shall not attempt to detail all that passed at that inter- 
view; some of it turned on the accident of the 21st September, 
but will give in substance all that is required to impart its true 
character to the reader. 

Gov. McDowell called upon his daughter to state the causes of 
our difficulties. She gave her version of that intercourse with her 
cousin at Frederick, of which I complained, aided by occasional 
suggestions from me, of incidents she omitted, and to the truth of 
which she assented. Of course, this comprehended nothing of 
the circumstances introduced into this statement, as having come 
to my knowledge long after this interview. As she made mention 
of but one case of complaint, Mrs. McDowell asked, is there not 
something else? Being extremely reluctant to wound unnecessa+ 
rily a mother’s feelings, and almost ashamed of the extent of my 
own apprehensions, I replied, if this one case can be, satisfactorily 
explained, I shall be willing to believe, that all subsequent dis- 
trusts were the offspring of the first. Gov. McDowell, having 
protested that he would not plead to a delusion, but striving to 
stagger the purpose of a man obviously struggling with over- 
whelming emotions, while he was himself perfectly collected, said, 
Mr. Thomas, the charges are adultery! infanticide! and falsehood! 
And only six weeks after marriage! My reply was, I have made 
no charges against your daughter; but come to you to learn if 
they be not true, why she has made to me such horrible commu- 
nications. There will be seen no inconsistency in this reply.when 
it is recollected, that I was even then infatuated with the hope that 
Mrs. Thomas might be vindicated. And I appealed to him with 
great earnestness to remove my misgivings. 

There was, before the interview closed, a solemn assertion of 
her innocence by Mrs. Thomas, elicited by her father, who said, 
Mr. ‘Thomas, did my daughter call God to witness the truth of her 
statements to you? No sir, said I. - She then said, I call God to 
witness that I am pure, and have been all that a wife ought to be: 
Do you hear that, said he? I replied, I do; but must confess my 
mind is not satisfied. With this asseveration no explanations were 
offered. Iam free to admit, that no marriage state can be tolera- 
ble, when such an asseveration from one, does, not receive full 
credence from the other party: and was ready, at all times, fora 
final separation, whenever that opinion was announced as the one 
by which Mrs. Thomas and her friends were to be governed. 
Mrs. McDowell closed the interview, by inducing her husband to 
leave the room. 


28 


_ Left alone together, I still endeavored to prevail on Mrs. Thomas 
to persuade her father to enter into explanations. She, on the 
other hand, urged me to acknowledge her innocence and take her 
home. Finally, I agreed to take her back to Annapolis, to avoid 
public speculation; but though ostensibly husband and wife, we 
should occupy separate apartments until explanations could be 
given. Upon these terms we parted, with the understanding that 
I should call for her in the evening to take her home. Accord- 
ingly, in the evening I went for her to Dr. Breckenridge’s, when, 
instead of being allowed to see her, the following letter was handed 
to me by a servant: . 
“BaLtimorE, Friday, Jan. 28, 1842. 


**My Dear Husband,—Since I was with you this morning, I have 
examined the whole of our interview again and again, in every 
light in which I could view it, and am perfectly convinced that 
it is best for the peace of us both, that I should not returmto your 
house until I could do so in possession of that full confidenee, 
which a husband should have fora wife. This confidence I have 
not now, and J deplore it from the bottom of my heart. You en- 
tertain painful suspicions against me, suspicions which I have of- 
ten told you, as I tell you again, with a solemn appeal to God for 
the truth of what I say, are utterly unfounded. But you think as 
you declared to me, that they are removable, perhaps easily re- 
moved, and this morning indicated, may be provided a way in 
which that removal of them could be effected; only satisfy your- 
self, no matter how or when, that these suspicions are all wrong, 
and that they are all dispelled and gone, and that I have again the 
love and confidence which I feel I am entitled to, and I will re- 
turn to your protection with rejoicing. 

In the mean time I will remain with my parents, taking every 
care that I can to prevent the awakening of any public speculation. 

You will see in this a change from this morning’s arragements ; 
but it is made upon the best reflection of my duty both to myself 
and you. 

That God Almighty may set your mind right in these painful 
matters, is the prayer of one whose hopes are in your justice. 


S. C. P. Tuomas.” 


Thus it appeared, that instead of any trial or investigation what- 
ever, contrary to her anxious desire to return with me, and con- 
sent to go and even live in separate apartments, rather than not 
go at all, she was induced by her family to withdraw altogether 
from my protection; and as her letter states, I would see in this 
a change in the morning’s arrangements. This letter disappoint- 
ing all my expectations, I sought and had an interview with, and 
took what I intended should be a final leave of Mrs. ‘Thomas. 

Thinking that Gov, McDowell’s refusal to enter into explana- 
tions might possibly be the effect of false pride, and ignorant as I 
then was of the revolting circumstance that long afterwards came 


29 


to my knowledge, I reluctantly sent for Dr. J. Buckler, and had 

with him a conversation on this subject. Dr. Buckler being the 

physician of some of the families of Mrs. Thomas’ connexion, and 

naturally desirous to prevent the exposure of such scenes, as are 

the subject matter of this statement, obtained my permission to 

confer with Dr. Breckenridge. After their interview, Dr. Bnckler 

returned to me with such strong representations of Mrs. Thomas’ 

distress at the prospect of parting, derived, as I understood from 

Dr. Breckenridge, which he deemed evidence of fidelity, that I 

was ied to consent he should confer further with Dr. Brecken- 

ridge, with a view to somearrangements. Under the influence of 
his kindly intervention, I was induced to write the following let- 

ter, to which the letter of Dr. Breckentige to Dr. Buckler, here , 
inserted, my be considered a reply. 


Barnum’s Horen, January 30, 1842. 


‘“Notwithstanding my deep reluctance to confer with any one 
concerning our most unfortunate misunderstanding, my dear wife, 
have yielded to your advice to consult Dr. Buckler. He has 
IT removed all those fatal delusions which your strange confessions 
conjured up in my mind, and which you know, sustained your 
statements in defiance of all my inclinations to yield full credence 
to yourrepeated recantations. I am, indeed, deeply mortified and 
bowed down with regret. This state of feeling has been of slow 
growth. ‘The perfect confidence of your Aunt Benton, had its 
effect. Your own manifestation of deep affection in refusing to 
accompany Mr. Breckenridge from Annapolis, you know, as I then 
told you, almost persuaded me to trust, as I once did, in your per- 
fect truth and purity. The confidence of your parents, and your 
own noble bearing since I came to Baltimore, have had too vast 
influence in dispelling the painful delusions from which I have 
suffered so much. When, to these were added the explanations of 
Dr. Buckler, of circumstances most mysterious to me but perfectly 
intelligible to a man of science, hope became deep-rooted cojvic- 
tion. In your truth, honor and virtue, and affection for a repen- 
tant husband, I have the utmost confidence. 


I begged Dr. Buckler, this morning, to have an interview with 
your Uncle Breckenridge, and authorized him to say, that I am 
anxious to be re-united on such terms as they would prescribe. 
Since then my heart dictates the course now taken—a free, full 
recantation of all my painful suspicions, offered as the only atone- 
ment I can make for what you have suffered. And at the same 
time, I forgive, with my whole heart, your strange errors, from 
which sprung and originated my unworthy distrust, seeing that 
your errors had their origin in the noblest of purposes. 


Having relieved my own swelling heart, by these unmeasured 
declarations, I appeal to you, my darling wife, to forgive and for- 
get the past, promising solemnly for the future, the most devoted 


30 


and tender attention to your happiness, if the obstacles to our ré- 
union are not insurmountable. ‘ Git Hkw 


With my whole heart, I am your devoted husband, He 
To Mrs. S. C. P: Thomas. * Francis Tu MAS 


“My Dear Sir,—I have communicated to Mrs. Thomas, the 
purport of our conversation this morning; and while I was in the 
act of doing so, a letter, from Mr. ‘Thomas to her, was handed to 
her, and read by her and then by myself. That letter, pressing the 
general proposition of the immediate return of Mrs. Thomas to her 
husband, concedes, I am glad to say, her entire innocence of all 
the horrible things, of which her husband has heretofore suspected 
her. It is the clear and final determination of Mrs. Thomas, and 
so I am instructed by her to say to you, that under the dreadful 
circumstances of this whole case, it is impossible for her hastily 
and without consideration, to take the step now urged by her 
husband. Crushed in health and spirits, by a long course of in- 
describable sufferings, she feels the necessity of repose and reflec- 
tion, before she can take any new step in which her happiness 
and honor are alike involved, and the peace of her family at stake. 
She will leave Baltimore to-morrow or nextday, for her father’s 
mansion in Virginia, under his protection, to which she has con- 
fided herself; and if she should ever return to Mr. Thomas as 
his wife, it must be from that mansion, with every circumstance 
befitting such an event. » 

Be pleased, my dear sir, to accept my thanks for the kind inte- 
rest which you have manifested in this business, and have the 
goodness to excuse me to Mr. Thomas, from any further inter- 
yention in it, in any way whatever. : 

Very truly, your obliged friend and servant, 

R. J. BRECKENRIDGE, 
Baltimore, January 30, 1842. 


s.”” a) 


Dr. J. Buckler, Baltimore.”’ 


The candid reader will judge of my case, rather from its own 
circumstances than from my frequent misapprehensions of them. 
In writing this aud similar letters, I was overcome by influences 
to which it was natural for me to yield, and by feelings which it 
was long impossib'e for me to control. It 1s always to be borne 
in mind, that in all my passionate appeals for the return of Mrs. 
Thomas, I trusted that her friends would not permit her to return, 
unless she was prepared to give voluntarily the explanations I 
no longe? insisted upon. A family occupying a high social eon- 
dition, believed to be governed by the strongest religious obliga- 
tions, I was not prepared to believe would extract from their daugh- 
ter, or even suffer her to offer me the most solemn assurances of 
her purity, unless conscientiously convinced of their truth. Under 
these impressions Dr. Breckenridge’s letter surprised me. In- 
stead of returning to me as I had aright to expect, if the state- 


3k 


ments of her own letters were. true, Mrs. Thomas was to go with 
her friends to Virginia. Ps a) 

Throughout the whole of this unfortunate connexion, though it 
was some times attempted to accuse me of cruel treatment, yet is 
there not only not the slightest proof of it, but I may defy the bit- 
terest enemy 1 have in the world, to make sucha charge plausible. 
In the interview between Dr. Breckenridge and his niece at An- 
napolis, when I had heard of that miserable slander charging me 
with locking up my wife in her chamber when I was absent, I 
called upon her to sanction, as she did, my statement demonstra- 
ting its absolute falsity. After Mrs. Benton’s return from Annapo- 
lis to Washington, when she had enjoyed an opportunity to hear 
every complaint her niece had to offer, ina letter addressed to that 
niece she said, (I quote her own language,) ‘‘although, Sally, I 
must take sides with you, I have not changed my opinion of 
Mr. Thomas as a man of honor and a gentleman.”’ In the inter- 
view in Baltimore at Dr. Breckenridge’s, in the presence of her 
parents, to guard against misrepresentations of my character and 

conduct, I appealed to Mrs. Thomas to say if ‘I had ever treated 
her harshly or restrained her actions in any respect whatever,” 
when it was not pretended by herI had done either. In the midst 
of all the affair at Annapolis, even after her parents had been sent 
for, Mrs. ‘Thomas was constantly in company always gay, and to 
the very last day of her residence there, before the world as if she 
had no cause of complaint or uneasiness. ‘This was not only dhe 
case when she was from her station, compelled to mingle with the 
world, but she sought occasions for appearing in scenes of plea- 
sure and enjoyment. For the truth of the facts here stated, I ap- 
peal to all who had an opportunity to observe, and challenge con- 
tradiction. . She refused to leave met at Annapolis to go with her 
uncle Breckenridge to Ballimore. She was only induced at last 
to go, in consequence of her father’s promise, that she should re- 
turn in a few days. According to the declarations of her uncle 
Breckenridge to Dr. Buckler, as communicated to me, she -was 
deeply anxious to go back with me from Baltimore to Annapo- 
lis. She had entreated me to take her back, and in her own let- 
_ter, written doubtless under the direction of her parents, speaks of 
_her wish to “‘return to my protection with rejoicing.” Yet, in the 
course of two days after that letter was written, she resolves not 
_to.go, and in the eloquent lamentations of her uncle Brecken- 
ridge’s letter, she was ‘crushed in health and spirits: by a long 
course of indiscribable sufferings.” If she was thus crushed, it 
must have been suddenly by the separation which her friends made 
inevitable, and not by that notoriously kind, indulgent and for- 
bearing treatment, she had experienced at all times under my pro- 
| tection. 

__ In short, my predicament at Baltimore was precisely this: 
Ignorant of what I afterwards came to the knowledge of, be- 
eying that Gov. and Mrs, McDowell would not act dishonorably 


















or 


32 


in the affair, and irresistibly prone to trust in the virtue of a woman 
I tenderly loved, guided by thé impulses of my heart, and not by 
the dictates of my understanding, I put aside the evidences of my 
‘own senses, and offered to leave the whole matter to their single 
assurance, that there was nothing wrong. ‘That offer they declined 
suddenly and most unexpectedly, for reasons ‘which they have 
never disclosed, withdrawing Mrs. Thomas from ‘my protection, 
and placing her under that of her father. ao 
By no means insensible of the infirmities of my conduct at that 
time, I feel no hesitation, so far from being ashamed of it, to in- 
troduce here further proofs of my delusion, in the following extracts 
from a letter, written at the time it bears date, in the most perfect 
confidence, to my highly respectable counsel, Francis S. Key, Esq., 
since decease, and from whose son, P. B. Key, Esq., since his 
decease, I have obtained the original: ; 


Awnnapotis, March 29, 1842. 


My Dear Sir,—I have re-perused your letter to cay, again and again, and 
am forced to look upon several sentences as enigmatical. At the risk of 
being thought tedious and troublesome—lI pray you pardon me if 1 am so—t 
will endeavor to have a clear and mutual understanding. This I have tried 
to get between my wife and friends and myself, in vain. ’ 

Now, what am I to understand by these two sentences in your letter, 
«Wait until you are sure ycu can feel this confidence in yourself and her; 
that you will feel it if you do not already, I cannot doubt.” Surely you have 
not imbibed the ridiculous idea that lam deranged? And thatit is necessary 
to divert me by generalities and equivoques for a time, to see whether nature 
will Work a cure ? 

Who and what am I to “ wait” for? It does not appear to me how my 
confidence in my wife is to be increased while I am here, and she is in Lex- 
ington, and all communication between us interrupted, 

I begin to fear that your occupation with grave and most important mat- 
ters, at the time I conferred with you in Washington, prevented your mind 
from seizing and rightly estimating many things there communicated. I 
hope that I shall neither be c: nsidered tedious or troublesome, in being more 
full and explicit than I have yet been. It is the more necessary, because I 
was, when we conversed in Washington, in a high state of excitement. I 
had a horror of the idea, that the misunderstanding between my wife and 
myself could ever gain publicity. I foresaw, that neither party could gain 
any thing by scandalising the other. And was most bitterly opposed to letting 
the public know that my wife had done or said any thing, that for a moment 
made her propriety or honour questionable. J did not think that she and her 
friends, could in any way be recompensed for the mortification they must feel 
if her fidelity to marriage vows, ever became a topic of conversation in 
steamboats and siages, and in taverns and bar-rooms. If the majority should 
decree that she was an injured woman, I sull felt that such a termination 
to the horrible and shocking enquiry, could not console a highly refined and 
delicate mind, for the ignominy of being put upon trial. Deely impressed 
with this, I kept my torturing thoughts for myself for months, that sormething 
might occur to remove my difficulties, or an opportunity offer to consult in 
the strictest confilence with her own immediate friends. , 

Having thoughts like these constantly before me, | did agonize to preven, 
the trip to Virginia. I did every thing that could be done to have full, freet 
satisfactory explanations, without an appeal to public notice and sympathy. 
While in that state of mind, with the one purpose constantly in view, we 
met at Washington, and I feel sensible that such representations were not 
made as must be made, to afford to you a fair opportunity to pass judgment 


: 33 a 
in this most mortifying affair. Have patience with me, | pray you, now 
and then let me have your kind counsel in language direct and unequivocal. 

[have said in my last letter to you, that if my sufferings had originated 
in nothing | ut thoughts, suspicions and imaginings, time alone might terminate 
them. And it would, in that case, be right to wait’ 7till relief carne—‘‘ at 
a time and in a way to be sure and permanent.” Butas that is net the case, 
it seems to me, tbat if I “ wait,” I shall be like the fool in Horace, and find 
that the bi'ter stream of misery, labitur et labetw: in omne evo. 

All my thoughts and imaginings about my dear wife were of the purest and 
most confiding character, until they were changed by the awkward attempts 
of my wife to account fer conduct coming under my observation, and by her 
subsequent statements, retractions and contradictions. Of these | will say no 
more, believing that you will remember their character. I will explain tue 
course I have taken to clear.our path of their fatal effects, in vain. If I have 
done, a1d am doing wrong, point it out plainly, withcut circumlocution, and 
aid me to bring’this affair to some issue that may be considered final. Iam 
wearied with conjectures, and am prepared for any certainty. 

There appeared to me to be but two modes in which our difficulties could 
be effectually removed. I have tried first one and then the other, without 
success. I was willing to submit the whole affair to her parents, and to 
abide by their determination. Accordingly, when my wife left Annapolis 
for Baltimore, to join her parents, [ said to her, communicate to them every 
thing, and with their decision [ shall be content. If they send you back 
{ will receive you; and never revive the unpleasant subject again. If they 
determine to take you to Virginia, go there, and unless I am attacked by your 
friends, no one shall know from me why you went there. And my wile 
promised to write and let me know the determination. After waiting from 
Saturday until the following Thursday, without receiving a letter, | went to 
Baltimore. While there, I had an interview with parents and daughter. In 
the course of it, 1 put questions to Mr. McDowell, to elicit some facts in his 
possession that might assist 1o form my own judgment. Being willing, if 
they would give me all the facts, to decide the matter myself, if they declined 
taking the affair in hand. He would give no answer to my guestions. To 
test their opinion of the matter, I offered then to take my wife again under 
my protection. Peing very certain that Mrs. McDowell would not consent 
to that, unless fully satisfied that all was right. ‘To this return my wife con- 
sented; the father objected; and insisted that I should take steps first to sat- 
isfy my mind. These difficulties worried me, and being without an adviser, 
I was totally ataloss howjtoact. I had, up to that moment, leaned with entire 
confideace upon the good feeling, which I took it for granted, her parents 
had towards the husband of their daughter, and when that failed me, felr. 
indeed bewildered. Under the first impulses of the moment, I was disposed 
to despair altogether, and to abandon all hopes of a happy re-union, After 
@ night’s reflection, having consulted with Dr. Buckler, most reluctantly, I 
authorized him to have an interview with Mr. Breckenridge. The result of 
that interview was my determination to write the letter to my wife which 
Benton has made public, inviting her to return home, and giving assurances 
of confilence and affection. With that, 1 had a hope that my difficulties 
would terminate. Deluded man, they were only about to commence. I 
held them, and now hold a letter from my wife, saying, satisfy your mind, 
no matter how or when, that [ am worthy, and [ will return to your protec- 
tion with rejoicing. © This letter was written at Breckenridge’s, as I have a 
right to suppose, with the sanction of the parents, as it was sent to me afler 
they had refused to consent to her return. 

With such a promise in possession, you will readily imagine, that I was 
surprised to receive through Doctor Buckler, a letter from Mr. Breckenridge, 
announcing the determination of my wife to put herself under the protection 
of her parents, and to go to her father’s residence in Virginia, from whence, 
if she ever returned to my protection, she was to be brought batk with all 
the circumstances befitting such an event. I was bewildered. It is true I 


34 


had acted abruptly, but it did not seem to me that I had done any thing’ so - 
unpardonable as tolead to an act, that I foresaw must be most mortifying 
and humiliating to my unhappy wife and myself. I shuddered with horror, 
at the thought that my wife was to be paraded about the country, while every 
knave was to speculate about her fidelity and my honor. I look back now 
upon the proceeding with amazement and horror. And I ask you what can 
recompense my poor wife for what she has suffered from that fatal movement.. 
I feel that she 1s an innocent woman. I believe her father can make. that 
appear. But I ask you, cana conviction of me of the act of a false judg- 
ment, ina most complicated affair, wherein my feelings were most deeply 
involved, console my wife or her friends, for the fact, that her fidelity to’ 
marriage vows has been freely inquired into, by travellers in steamboats and 
stages, and by filthy loungers in oyster houses and bar-rooms. 

Having these views of the consequences. of this trip to Virginia, there’ 
were moments in spite of all my better feelings, when I feared that there 
was a deep and grave cause for final separation between us. And hence, in 
my conversation with you at Washington, and afterwards, I had a desire to 
see myself all the facts in the case, to be certain that the assurances I had 
received, were all well founded. 

Having given this detailed, I fear very tedious statement, I think you will 
understand my position = 


If the mother of my wife will consent to her return,.such is my boundles 5 
confidence in the purity of that mother, I will receive her most cordiallys 
without feeling the slightest apprehension of the past. And will not ask for 
or need any explanations that may cause my wife mortification, in: being: 
eompelled to admit that this statement, that statement, or another, was made 
without truth to sustain it. 

If the parents will not consent to. the re-union, and thereby give an opin 
ion in the whole matter, then Iam frank to say, that the re-union of m 
wife and self would not be desirable, in the absence of all explanations what 
ever, and without giving to me facts that I have not had communicated. 

With these explicit declarations, surely my position, and all that I have’ 
done, can be comprehended. 

These declarations serve too to explain my proceedings in another respect 
I have attempted, first in one mode, and then in another, to bring about a 
re-union that could be lasting and happy. I have shown a willingness, nay am 
eager desire to take my wife with consent of parents, and without explanations. 
And I have, when that consent was withheld, been equally anxious to be 
reconciled, if placed in possession of facts and explanations as to the past | 
that would afford me the means-to know myself that all was but a fearfu), 


dream, and to guard against mistake for the future. ; 
I must again apologise for my long letter, and beg in reply, a direct and 


explicit opinion of the whole. 
With assurances of most grateful recollections of your kindness, 
I ap most truly yours, 
FRANCIS THOMAS, 


This letter, it will be perceived, was written in reply to one I 
had received from him, and I received many from him of a similar 
character, which he wrote to dissuade me from action or proceeding 
of any kind, advising me to remain perfectly passive, until the sense 
of justice, which we both united in ascribing to her family, should 
lead them to do what was right. From his many letters, I sub- 
join extracts from one written at alate period, and hold all of them,. 
and every other letter from which an extract is herein made, sub- 
ject to the call of any proper person : 


* 


Bb 
Extract of a letter from F. 8. Key, Esq. “ 
“ Wasuineton, August 3, 1842. 
My Dear Sir,—No. J assure you, that my reluctance to your 
instituting any action at present, or making any change in your 
position, is a sincere and firm conviction, that your present course 
is gaining for you the public sympathy, and the increasing appro- 
bation of your friends every day. I know this to be the case, and 
cannot be mistaken. ' ; 
I am sure, too, that it will produce a more desirable effect upon 
-your wife’s family and friends ; and confidently. believe, that, if 
persevered in, they will place matters in, such a state, that you 
raay chose what shall be the state of future relations between you. 
With these expressions, I am sure, that any movement on your 
part at present would be injudicious, and can only as a friend and 
counsellor advise you in the strongest terms, to let your present 
course proceed to the desirable results, that I fully believe it is 
now working.”’ 


I was at this time, and had been for some time before, and 
continued to be for a long time afterwards, the subject, and I may 
add the victim not only of my own delusions, but of the advice 
of others, some of them perhaps as much deceived as I was. I 
could not realize, that when Mrs. Thomas was taken home to her 
father’s, the separation was final; as her note of the 28th of Jan- 
uary, assured me of the contrary. And while at Washington, on 
her way home, the following letter from Col. Benton, enclosing 
another note from her, confirmed this assurance : 


‘¢ SenaTE CuamBer, February 4, 1842. 

Dear Str,—Y our letter from Annapolis, was received yesterday, 
and I only delayed answering it by return mail in order to make 
it satisfactory. I said nothing in Baltimore, because I understood 
it to be the wish of Sally—her own wish—to proceed to Virginia 
with her parents; and having shewn her your letter received yes- 
terday, she has sent me up the enclosed note since I came up, 
(she being out with Eliza when I came away,) which shews, that 
it is still her unbiassed wish to proceed to Virginia. As to the 
enquiry in your postscript, and the inferences to be derived from 
them, I declare the whole to be a sad delusion. I know enough, 
to know it to be a sad delusion. Yours, truly, 


Gov. Thomas, Annapolis.” - Tomas H. Benton. 


Wasuineton City, Tuesday, Feb. 4, 1842. 

‘‘My Dear Uncle,—Finding you gone to the Senate Chamber, 
upon my return from a walk, I can only say to you by note what 
I would have said in person, about my going to Virginia, under 
present circumstances. : 

And that is, that this act earnestly and solemnly advised by my 
parents, is nevertheless my own act, as I have elsewhere said— 
-resolyed upon without constraint, and of my own free will. And 


56 | ~ 


itis but just to all that I should add, that my judgment daily - 
more and more convinces me, that the step, though very hard for 
me to take, is the right one. Affectionately, tk 


So: CoP. Drona? 


In this the last note, but the one which closed our intercourse, 
I ever received, the emphasis put by her upon the words “ under 
present circumstances,’ was calculated, if not designed, to im- 
press me with the belief, that our separation was to be but tempo- 
rary. ‘Though that Was not one of the ‘ delusions” mentioned 
in Col. Benton’s letter, yet was it stronger than any he attempt- 
ed to dispel. e 

Still confiding in the probity of her family, and her own fair 
dealing, I was only too much disposed to yield the promptings 
of my own mind to advice from other quarters, to hope and waif, 
postponing all attempts at my own justification that might -inter- 
fere with what appeared to be her arrangement. Of the various 
conversations intended to influence my silence and draw from me 
letters to her, J shall say nothing. But I select from the many 
Iutters designed for the same object, the following, as evidences 
brought to bear on my mind at that time, not yet opén to the 
whole truth : 


Extract from a letter, dated ; 
- Battimore, Sunday evening, 13th Feb. 1842, 
“Dear Sir :—I returned from Washington last night, having had in the 
course of Friday another long conversation with Mr. Preston, on the subject 
of my visit. My first impression after hearing every thing; Was to assume 
the responsibility of going on to the residence of your father in law, and— 
making an effort there, to bring about the result which [ thought was, upon 
every account, so desirable. But upon consideration I concluded, that if 
you approved of it, I might be supposed, by the family of Mrs. Thomas, to 
act prematurely, and I then made up my mind to return to Annapolis first. 
[ do. not despair by any means of a favorable issue, and urgently solicit you 
to be as silent upon the whole matter as your feelings will permit. Pru- 
dence upon your part is absolutely necessary to the success of the wish, 
now, I am sure nearer your heart than any other, and which it is due to the 
sad condition of your wife that by no rashness, you put at hazard the re- 
conciliation so absolutely necessary to her very existence.” | 


Extract from a letter, dated ‘ 
Battimorg, 5th March, 1842. 


“My Dear Sir,—I received to-day only, a letter from Mr. MeDowell dated 
the Ist, he having, strange to say, received my letters but a day or two be- 
fore. The letter is short, but in a very good spirit, and short, as he says, 
because he proposes writing me at large on the 4th, that is yesterday. The 
moment I recetve that letter, I shall start for Virginia.” 


Extracts from a letter, dated ‘ 18th April, 1842. 


“‘Dear Gov.,—I wro‘e to your wife soon after I wrote the first letter to 
you, “‘assuring lier if she had returned that she would have found in you all 
that she could ask or desire in a husband. This I felt authorised to say from 
all that passed between you, —— and myself. Since which we have 
fears that your mind is unsettled. Now, we think it would be far from cor- 
yect in us to urge her immediate return if there remains any doubt on your 
mind. Mr. ———— and myself think there ought not to be. You must 


- 





i 


tlow be satisfied that this separation has been catsed by her father, ahd that 
he deserves, as I no doubt she has, your deepest sympathy, and T trust if 
may say your entire confidence. It gave me pleasure to learn from Mr. 
seg that Mr. and Mrs; Benton felt much for you, and thought a re-union 
would take place. This I am sure will be the final result.” 


Extracts from a letter; dated ti 2Q8tit April, 1842. 


“‘ Dear Gov.,—Mrs- ———- said she had a letter recently from het 
sister saying that your wife continued unwell. She appeared to be frank, 
and admitted that she had told you different stories. I told her my impres- 
sion was that this had led to all your difficulties, and that it ought to be re- 
ceived as some apology for your suspicions. She said that was true. And 
said that she fully intended returning to you. And in reply to her friends 
urging a different course said, my husband on this subject is not himself; it 
is my duty to return, fot 1am sute time will correct his false impressions. 
l said we were anxious to know what was expected on your part more than 
you had doiie; you had withdrawn all that you had said, that your mind 
was entirely. relieved of that painful anxiety, atid if she Woald return that 
she would find she had your entire cotifidence: She then said what securi- 
ty can she have that it may not return. I told her the sad affliction which 
both had suffered would make them eautious. It was too better to be for- 
got. She said, it was true if yow remained separate, her happiness and 
prospects in life were gone: AndI assured her your’s were forever gone 
unless she returned. She said if she returns he will I suppose go for her} 
to which I said no doubt he will do what ‘she requires. She said she 
thought she ought to decide atid not to keep yott in the state of mind you 
were under, and that she would write to her to'that effect.” 


Extracts from a letter, dated Sih May, 1842. 


“Dear Gov.,—On Friday week I went to Washington and saw Col. Ben- 
ton, as he was about to go to the Senate, she to ride. He requested me td 
call in the evening; that he would inform Mrs. Benton of the objecttof my 
calling, and that she would see me; that an engagement would prevent him: 
I called and had along and free conversation with her. She stated that 
soon after you niarried you doubted the chastity of your wife, and even ac- 
cused her of impropriety before she became your wife, that your suspicions 
increased on you, and that you not only suspected her of impropriety with 
her cousin, but that you suspected her of the same conduct with another, 
and that you frequently talked to her of separating. She went into this de- 
tail to show me why they had come to the conclusion that your mind was 
not sane on this subject, which appears to be fully the impression of het 
family. She said she always liked you. After along conversation with 
her in which she evinced and expressed much regard for you, she said she 
thought you would be again united, whenever it was ascertained that your 
mind was free from suspicion. She thought the first step to be taken to re- 
move doubt was that you should make an apology to Mr. This she 
thought you would certainly do if your mind was free from suspicion. She 
informed me that Mr. —— had communicated to her and Col, B. the 
charge you had made against him, immediately on seeing them, likewise to 
his father. On Saturday morning I called again and had a talk of two 
hours with the Col. and his lady. He said he was pleased that I had re- 
turned. I found him your friend, and he said I might say to you when your 
mind was right, on that subject;that he should advise her to return, in which 
they both agreed, and said you would be united again. He thought; to sat= 
isfy the family and to do justice to Mr. ——, thay the first step towards a re- 
union was an apology to him. ) 

You now see, my Dear Sir, the grounds of your separation. I am fully 
* eonvinced that she is perfectly pure, and that there was nothing not even in 
thoughts, that would have offended you could you have read them. She is 
@ noble woman, evincing in her conduct a strong mind aid just love for you, 











38 


when she. wished to return to you as they state, believing your mind was 
not right cn"this sybject, and trusung by her conluct to put it right, how 
few of hér sex would have wished to return after what had happened. She 
will yet be the richest gift that God can bestow on you, and were Lin your 
situation, IT would make «very earthly sacrifice to speedily get her back. | 
regret to learn that her health is bad. She lately had to apply a blister on her 
breast. 1 fear the mountain air is too sharp. Have you written to her, let 
ime pray you to attend to that.” 


Extracts from a letter from F. Thomas to a friend in Virginia, dated 


Freperick, July 24, 1842. 
“‘My Dear Sir,—I wrote yesterday a letter to ——..and asked him to 
show it toyou. Since then I have thought it would be well enough to show 
that letter to ——-——, who are making themselves very busy in exhibiting 
my letters. : 
‘You will perceive that my wife’s friends dre taking a very singular 
course. A portiofi of my wife’s friends have influenced me to write those 
letters, by producing the impression on my mind that my wife was all that 
a husband could desire. And another portion of her-friends are exhibiting 
the same letters to prove her innocence. This seems to me to be a strange 
proceeding. They might as well rely altogether for her vindication, on their 
own assertions. For my letters are in effect nothing but-their assurances, 
given first by them, and then uttered by me to my wife. If the separation be- 
tween myself and my wife is to be final, her friends will find that something. 
much more substantial than my letters must be resorted to, to satisfy public 
opinion.”? 





To the preceding and similar letters, and to the conversations 
I have alluded to, are attributable the many Jetters from me in 
Mrs. Thomas’ possession, showing how I clung to the confidence 
that she was as her friends had assured me, all that a fond husband 
could desire. The dissemination of foul and filthy calumnies against 
me cannot acquit her. If true, why have they not in proper form, 
by making them the ground of an application for her divorce, 
asserted and established them? Being false, they aggravate in- 
stead of justifying her position. 

Far from being disposed to conceal the letters to Mrs. Thomas, 
which these influences elicited, I recur to them with a pure con- 
science, as evinsive of the real state of my feelings at the time. 
My notions of honor and fair dealing would not allow me to sus- 
pect, that the shameful controversy was kept open, with the mise- 
rable design of drawing from me affectionate letters, only to be 
used for her vindication. If the determination was, that the sepa- 
ration should be final, the annunciation of that purpose ought to 
have been a part of that remarkable letter of Dr. Breckenridge’s, 
and my first letter afterwards ought to have been returned. I 
have never been confronted by any accuser imputing to me any 
thing but delusion. My letters withdrew every charge against her 
of which she complained, and thus offered the opportunity to 
return, which she said in her Baltimore letter, would be embraced 
“‘ with rejoicing.’? They circulate my letters as evidence of her 
innocence; and thus admit I have made atonement-for all mis- 
takes. If so, why not point out to me those circumstances allu- 


39 

ded to-in her Uncle Piel ety letter, as “ befitting the oeca+ 
sion,” when she is from ‘her father’s mansion” to be ‘ brought 
back” tomy protection? Do not her own friends condemn her? 
They have kept her in “‘ her father’s mansion’ when entreated by 
me to come back, without her father being required to ‘‘ plead to 
my delusions.” ‘They have received and have circulated letter 
after letter from me, as evidence of her right to return and be 
treated as a virtuous wife. And yet is she as effectually sepa- 
rated from me, as if a court of justice hed condemned her for 
infidelity. Ts it illiberal to impute design to them in ‘obtaining 
these letters in the first instance? And is it uncharitable to sus- 
pect, that her friends could not and would not prevent her return, 
if all were conscious that she could give those explanations, which 
I had ceased to demand but must necessarily expect ? ; 

Without commenting as it merits on the indecent and disgrace- 
ful conduct of all parties concerned, in handing about for perusal, 
during the first session of the last Congress, my confidential letters 
to Mrs. Thomas at Baltimore, together with certain letters to Col. 
Benton, equally confidential, it is sufficient to say, that those 
letters were all-obtaimed under circumstances herein set forth. 


Before I leave this part of the subject, I deem it important to 
add, that under the advice of one of my counsel, R. Johnson, Esq., 
I wrote an affectionate letter to Mrs. Thomas, which, with his let- 
ters to Gov.-McDowell and his daughter, have been also privately 
exhibited as proofs of her innocence. ‘The explanation I have 
given of this whole class of letters, applies to this one of mine with 
full force. I will add further, that I have no reason to believe 
that any of my friends, or legal advisers, had the means of reconci- 
ling the innocence of Mrs. Thomas, with the existence of the facts 
herein unveiled. At least they did not attempt to do this-in con- 
yersation with me. They founded their advice and opinions, as 
far as I am advised, as I did my letters and conduct, on faith and 
feeling alone. Under such influences, one of those counsel went a 
great deal further than I was disposed to sanction. The judg- 
ments of all were, that the whole affair was too monstrous to be 
probable, and on that account, it beeame me to afford time and 
opportunity for the explanations which they hoped would be given. 
‘Fhe public having now the facts before them, can judge how far 
the opinions under which I acted were well founded, and will 
know what value to attach to the letters themselves. 

In consequence of the pretence of Gov. McDowell, which at one 
time imposed upon me, that he was hostile to my union with his. 
daughter, it may hereafter become necessary for me to go into a 
collateral part of this affair. But though I shall not do so at pre- 
sent, it is proper that at least a portion of that view of the subject 
should be presented here. It will be readily perceived, that my 
love for Mrs. Thomas was not the transient affection of a youth- 
ful admirer, but the deep seated devotion of the only love of a man, 
fixed in his principles, and fervent and constant in all-his attach- 


40 


_ fachments. With such a man from the beginning of our acquaint- 

ance to the consummation of our marriage, the friends of Mrs. 
Thomas continually operated to bring about that event. As al- 
ready intimated, for a long while I never doubted that the motive 
for this proceeding on the part of her friends, was the motive they 
always assigned, her disinterested attachment for me. In the course 
of time, however, I had reason to fear that her uncle Benton had 
disclosed to her views of the probability of my public promotion, 
which might make her mistake the nature of her own feelings. 
Looking back upon her course, as well before as since our con- 
nexion, I trust it will not be deemed uncharitable to say, that am- 
bitious inducements were presented to her view by her friends, as 
the means of making her accede to their purposes with regard to 
me. (This indeed, she admitted without reserve after our mar 
riage.) Otherwise, if so much attached as her friends always rep- 
resented during five long years, would her conduet be as here rep- 
resented, after the accomplishment of a long cherished wish? My 
attentions were, as I have said, several times withdrawn, which 
was done in every instance under an apprehension that she might, 
mistaking her own feelings, become my wife, from the influence of 
ambitious considerations presented by her friends, and not from 
that disinterested affection, which alone, with one of my temper, 
could secure happiness in the marriage state. Many of these in- 
terruptions to the courtship might be given, proof of one only will - 
now be submitted, as it illustrates the mode in which Gov. Mc- 
Dowell, more than once, opposed the match. My misgivings, as 
to the real motive of this pertinacious proceeding, Jed, in March, 
1841, to a correspondence between Col, Benton and myself. This 
correspondence I took with me on a visit to-Gov. McDowell’s, in 
April of the same year, and submitted it to his consideration. Af- 
ter a conversation with the daughter, intended to ascertain the true 
state of her feelings, I addressed to her the following note, and at 
the same time the note here inserted to her father; 


‘‘After the most mature reflection upon the facts communicated 
to me yesterday by Miss McDowell, I have at last formed an opi- 
nion on which I may venture to act; and now withdraw all pre- 
tensions whatever to her heart or hand. i 

Very respectfully, Francis Tuomas. 

April, 1841. | 

<< Sir,—I have to request, respectfully, that you will do me the fa- 
vor to return, by the hands of the bearer, the letters and papers ace 
companying them, sent to your address last night. 

Very respectfully, Francis Tuomas. 


James McDowell, Sen. Esq. April, 1841.” 


In reply to these 1 received from Gov. McDowell, the follow- 
ing notes : 


al 


_ Dear Sir,—Being unable to read by candle light I have not yet 
‘run over the papers what you were pleased tosubmit to my exam- 
 jnation, and which I will return as soon as I have read. 
Most respectfully your ob’t. sertt, © Jas. McDoweLt. 
Hon. PF. Thomas, at Mr. Sloan’s. April 23, 1841.” 


“Jas. McDowell returns to Mr. Thomas his papers and desires to 
see him at his house, at any hour this morning that may suit Mr. 
Thomas’ convenience. Suturday morning.”’ 

Of course I went immediately to his house as invited, and there 
was received by Miss McDowell, in the presence of ber mother, in 
the kindest and most cordial manner. ‘This I mention as proof, 
that the father had invited me to visit his house to see, not him, 
but his daughter. - When about leaving the house I was taken by 
Gov. McD. into his study, where he in the most friendly manner, 
removed all my difficulties, And I left him in the full belief that 
nothing but my own diffidence had. made me doubt, the disinterest 
ed affection of hisdaughter, and the sincere friendship or her fami- 
ly. Soon after my return to the hotel in Lexington, rear which 
place Gov. McDowell then resided, I received from his daughter a 
most kind note, fixing a day for our marriage. Thereupon I 
wrote to him apprising himof that-fact, and expressed such feel- 
ings as the occasion called for. Although*now no longer suffering 
under the hallucinations ascribed to me, I confess my inability 
to explain, with certainty, the motives that led him to address to 
me the following reply: 

Cot—-Auto, April 26, 1841. . 

“Dear Sir,—I can only say in reply to your note of this inst; 

* in relation to my daughter, that my opposition to your engagement 
with her is ended, but that my conviction is even stronger and 
painfuller than ever, that the fearful inequality of age between you, 
and consequently of habits and tastes, cannot but render the com- 
pletion of that engagement, a most unwise and perilous step to you 

-both. If Sally, however, cannot realize my apprehensions on this 
score, or realizing them in part, is nevertheless determined to risk 
them, then all that I can do is to’give way to her will, and quietly 
to allow its execution. She has, therefore, my full permission to 
act in the engagement between you as she pleases, and would to 
God that my heart—the fearfully foreboding heart of an anxious 
and devoted father—could follow that ‘“‘permission”? with its 
cheerful consent. Most respectfully yours, 
Hon. Francis Thomas. Jas. McDowetu.” 


Thad before, in the fall of 1839, at the instance of Col. Benton, 
and under an assurance from him that such visit would be accept- 
able to Mr. McDowell, visited Goy. McD’s. family as his daugh- 
ter’s suitor, and was kindly welcomed by all as such.. In 18401 
also twice visited his family, and my engagement to marry his 
daughter was settled and announced. The time fixed for it was, 
to suit his convenience, the following spring. This arrangement 

6 


42 j 


was interrupted by me, and was restored by Gov. McDowell as 
above stated. After this what motive could have led him to-ad- 
dress to me this letter, so completely at variance with his verbal , 
communications on the day before its date? His manner in our 
interview in the study had been most cordial and confiding 3 so 
much so as to make me rejoice at having renewed my attentions to 
his daughter. At that time I was too much under the influence 
of pleasurable emotions to note, the marked diffidence between 
what he said on one day, and what he reduced to writing on the 
next. ‘There was no slow leave, when in conversation in his 
study, in Gov. McDowell’s grant of his daughter’s hand: just the 
contrary. But in his mysterious letter no proof, of his entire wil- 
lingness for the match is to be found. It is ridiculous to suppose 
that the true cause for this difference is assigned. There wasno such 
“fearful inequality” of ages, as to justify any fearful forebodings 
on that account. I was then forty-two, his daughter was twent 
years of age. I leave the public to decide why Gov. McDowell 
foresaw in the marriage of his daughter the gloomiest, if not the 
most fatal consequence, and assigned a reason for these anticipa- 
tions altogether inadequate. My own mode of accounting for, 
his portentous permission, to what he most significantly calls the 
execution of her will, with ominous forebodings of direful results 
might, by some who do not know well the man, he considered 
uncharitable. Her disposition must have been known to her pa- 
rents. Not to allude again to all the disgusting details which har- 
rassed me, the partner of my bed told me, in the first week of the 
moon supposed to be all love, that she had kissed a young man 
not of her family ; within a very few weeks after, she charged an- 
other with attempting her pollution; shortly afterwards she in- . 
volved me in an inglorious controversy with a fourth; the very 
night of our arrival at our new home in Annapolis, my confidence 
was again disturbed. Well might the father of such a daughter 
predict disasters from her marriage. Well might he guard him- 
self from her future husband’s reproaches, by a letter foretokening 
misfortunes of which he washed his hands. 

I proceed now to the closing scene of this monstrous drama, 
just as foreshadowed by Gov. McDowell, a scene of vulgar vio- 
lence, in which he became the principal actor, fulfilling his own 
predictions. 

For more than a year after the separation I had remained soli- 
tary, and as far as possible silent and passive, suffering calumny 
and contumely, with the yet unsubdued longing after the woman 
I loved with infatuated devotion. In the course of that year, al- 
ways anxious to inform myself of her well-being, although then 
possessed of many of the terrible developements set forth in this 
narrative, yet, still, at intervals not despairing of Mrs. Thomas’ 
vindication, I listened with anxious expectation to all the tidings 
concerning her that reached me, especially to such as encouraged 
my hope of an honorable re-union. Amongst the rest, I received _ 


43 


ketters from friends that could not but make a strong impression 
upon me, from which the following are extracts : . 


Extract from a letter, dated July 28th, 1842. 


«My Dear Sir,—-I understand from a lady in Lexington, that 
Mrs. ‘Thomas was delivered of a child about eight or ten days ago, 
and I regret to inform you that the child was either born dead, or 
died soon after its birth. I.saw a gentleman from Lexington yes- 
terday, who says that Mrs. ‘Thomas is doing well, and is as well 
as usual in such cases. nt 

I have hitherto been misled as to her situation by her family, 
who have strongly used all the means in their power to conceal it. 
It is their determination to affect a permanent separation between 

ou. I have been unable to obtain certain information of the state 
of her feelings towards you, but it is the general opinion of her 
acquaintances about Lexington, that she is very much attached to 
you; indeed [am convinced of this from a conversation I had with 
one of her aunts a few days ago, and some anecdotes are related 
in Lexington which confirm it. Some one of her family, in di- 
recting a-letter to her, wrote her name Sarah McDowell instead of 
Thomas, which distressed and insulted her very much. It is said 
also, that a proposition was made to her to apply for a divorce, 
which she indignantly rejected and was very much distressed. 

I understand that one of her aunts, on hearing of the death of 
her child, expressed great joy.” 

Extract from a letter, dated — October 3, 1842. 

“My Dear Sir,—Your wife had withdrawn entirely from society 
since she left you, and was not seen out of her father’s house, ex- 
cept occasionally in a carriage when she rode out for her health. 
Her attachment for you continues, and she will not permit any one 
to speak unkind of you in my presence. My wife was with me 
in Lexington, and we did not see her at all, Since our return 
home your wife paid her first visit to her aunt, who lives near this 
place, and attended preaching here for the first time, I understand, 
since she left you. As she appeared in public, my wife felt au- 
thorised to pay her a visit at , and on reaching there found 
she had rode out. My wife desired Mrs. to say to her on 
her return that she intended her visit for her, and in a day or two 
she returned my wife’s visit alone, and being at home I introduced 
her to my wife and your nieces. She was deeply affected at meet- 
ing with us. On parting with us she agreed to dine with us the 
next day, and spent the next day with us and seemed to be happy 
with us, and was particularly affectionate with your nieces. A day 
or two aflerwards she went home. She expressed herself very 
much gratified with her visit to my family, and very feelingly 
thanked my wife and myself for our kindness to her. When she 
parted with us she promised to meet us again soon, and said that 
she would not then return to her father’s so soon, but for the dis- 
tressing news her mother had just received of the death of her sis- 

















44 - 


ter. I have learned from a fiiend of her’s since, that she was de- 
lighted with her visit, and very much gratified. with the visit of 
my wife to her; but said she was very near sinking when she 
met me, as it reminded her so forcibly of the circumstances of our 
last meeting, (which was at your wedding.) I had no opportu- 
nity to say any thing to her about you, or learn the state of her 
feelings to you, but I have no doubt of her devotion to you, and 
if I had any doubt of it, her visit to my family would have re- 
moved it, for she certainly would have no desire to visit your rela- 
tives, and would not enjoy their company, if her affection for you 
did not remain. She talked to your nieces very affectionately about 
your sisters and their children.” : . 








Extract from a letter addressed by F’. Thomas to a friend in Vir- 
ginia, dated November 14, 1842. 
“Dear Sir,—Yielding to your opinions as I have several times 

to the opinions of other friends, I have addressed a letter to my 

wife, of which I herein enclose a copy.” 


Extract from a letter, dated — Richmond, Jan. 23, 1843. ’ 

_ “T had some conversation to-day generally with Mr. , from 
which I learned that Mrs. T’s. health is bad. I also learned 
through a brother churchman, who was at my house from the 
upper country, that Bishop Meade had informed him she was very 
seriously impressed on the subject of religion, and expected before 
long to be confirmed. 

‘“¢ Her preference for the Episcopal Church would seem to prc=. 
ceed-from her attachment for you; your friends belonging to it, - 
but not her’s.” 

That Mrs. Thomas should have seemed to seek the society of 
members of my family; that she appeared to be happy in their . 
company; that she even talked of leaving the church in which she 
had been educated ; and of joining that of which my family were 
members ; all I deemed auspicious of her returning to my protec- 
tion not only ‘with rejoieing,” but with satisfactory proofs of in- 
nocence that would make me rejvice also. 

About the same period there came what I could not but inter- 
pret as favorable overtures from her father. Although he did not 
write to me, yet during the session of the Virginia Legislature, in 
the winter of [843, he continually sent to me a great many public 
documents ; not such as one Governor of a State sends to anoth- 
‘er. Thus encouraged, and fondly believing that all these circum- — 
stances were preliminary to the gratification of long cherished ex- 
pectations, I felt it to be my place as a man, and it deeply har- 
monised ‘with my feelings, to put myself in the way of explana- 
tions, to invite them, not to wait until I -was met half way, but to 
save a woman the mortification of making approaches. Accord- 
ingly I addressed to her the following affectionate letter. That 
one part of this letter may be understood, it is proper to state, that 
my letter of November 1843, alluded to in the one which follows, 

















45 


and which had been returned, contained an annunciation of my 
‘purposes, whenever satisfred that we could not’ be honorably re- 
united, to make a full disclosure of the causes of the separation. 
As her friends had arraigned me before the public, I should be 
compelled to enter upon my defence, so as to repel their charges t 


Francis Thomas to Mrs. Thomas. 


: Awnapo.ts, Feb’y. 20, 1843.. 
‘It is impossible, my beautiful wife, for you to conceive the bit- 
ter regret | feel at the failure of every attempt to learn your inclin- 
ations. ‘The return of my last letter I am sure grew out of a mis- 
conception of its character; and is not considered by me as proof 
that the long cherished, still dearest hope of my heart must be 
abandoned. It may be that I am yet destined to see you happy 
in occupying and enjoying that station I was ambitious to attain 
only for your sake. In that hope I live, when that hope is blast- 
- ed this life has lost all attractions ‘for me. 

Your father has shown me no mercy. Still I sympathise in the 
pain and privation of his present situation. Let me entreat you 
to point out any thing that can be done by me to reunite your fa- 
ther’s family, and restore happiness and peace to a wife, dear, very: 
dear to the heart of your unhappy husband, 

To Mrs. S. C. P. Thomas. Francis THomas.” 


After this letter the reception of further documents from Goy. 
~ McDowell, could not but lead me to believe that Mrs. Thomas’. 
parents were favorable to that honorable reconciliation for which 
I had made so much sacrifice of feeling. It is due to truth to add 
that these pleasurable feelings were not without alternate doubts 
and apprehensions, arising from what I considered impossibilities 
in the way. They were overcome as will appear, and-I addressed 
Mrs. ‘Thomas another letter as follows: 


Francis Thomas to Mrs. Thomas. 


‘* AnnAPoLis, Saturday, March 26, 1843. 
“The attention of my last note, and the reception of several 
p:ckets of documents under the frank of your father, lead me to 
hope, my dear wife, that neither you nor your parents desire our 
final separation. If of this I could be certain, there is nothing to 
which I would not most cheerfully submit, that you or they could 
exact, to produce our re-union. 
_ The great difficulty with me, arises from uncertainty as to your 
‘inclination. On your mere wish, in this affair, every thing must 
depend. How that is to be ascertained I know not: You will 
neither correspond nor signify a willingness to see me. I was 
denied an interview at your Uncle Benton’s in Washington : and 
have not on that account visited Lexington until 1 could have 
some assurance, that such a proceeding, on my part, would not be 
disagreeable. Could I but know how to act, so as to further the 
first wish of my heart, no false pride, no etiquette, should, in this 
most grave affair, influence for a moment my conduct. 


: 3 


\ 


46 


Am I asking too much of my wife, in making most earnestly 
the request of her, to signify in some mode, that she does not con- 
sider our final separation unavoidable ? 

Remember, that it is a husband who appeals toa wife. And I 
can add, recollect too, that the appeal comes from a husband whose 
errors of sentiment or conduct may be all traced by an unprejudi- 
ced mind, to that which a wife could surely pardon excess of love 
and affection. 

If all attempts to produce our reconciliation and re-union will 
be fruitless, envelope this and return it through the mail. If 
otherwise, retain it, and receive the eternal gratitude, as you have 
still the passionate affection of Your unhappy husband, 

Francis Tuomas. 

Zo Mrs. S. C. P. Thomas, near Lexington.” 


Distrusting my own judgment, as I have ever done in this affair, 
I consulted a gentleman then near me, who, at my request, has 
since furnished the following letter, which gives the true state of 
things at that time: : 

*¢ Annapouis, March 4th, 1844. 

Dear Sir,—In answer to your note of the 2nd instant, I haye 
to state, that I have a distinct recollection of the conversation to 
which*you have called my attention. Although I do not desire to 
be mixed up with the painful subject, yet I have no hesitation in 
complying with your request, by giving you a full statement of what 
was said by both you and me on the occasion to which you refer. 

During the session of 1842-3, you received through the mail 
several packets of legislative documents under the frank of Gov. 
McDowell of Virginia. Onan examination of the character of 
these documents, I found many of them to be of a. purely local 
nature, and of no kind of interest to any one, living beyond the 
limits of the State of Virginia. I recollect the object of transmis- 
sion to you being a subject of much conversation between us. I 
gave it as my opinion, that Gov. McDowell had taken this mode . 
to signify to you that he was willing that there should be a recon- 
ciliation between you and Mrs. Thomas, and that the transmission 
of those documents was a delicate intimation of his desire that 
you should approach him upon the subject. I was induced to 
adopt this opinion, because I believed, that the matters which had 
led to your separation could be fully and satisfactorily explained, 
and because I could discover no other reason for the vee 
of unimportant documents, having only a local interest. ‘These 
views I sustained with a good deal of earnestness. I did this, 
because I felt a deep and sincere anxiety to see-you and yor wile. 
fully: reconciled. . 

Some time after this, you informed me, that acting upon my 
views of the matter, you had addressed a letter to your wife, in- 
forming her that you had received the papers alluded to, and that 
the reason for their transmission was supposed to be a desire on 
her part, as. well as that of her father, to bring you together again, 


zg at 














- 


AT 


and if such was the reason in fact, and if a visit from you to her 
would be agreeable, that she would retain your letter;—if rit 
that she would return it. After the lapse of some weeks, you to 
me that your letter had not been returned, and asked ine what z 
thought of it. I replied, that the retention by your wife of youz 
letter, convinced me of her affection for you, and that you ought, 
by all means, to go out to Virginia to see her. You told me that 
you were willing to do every thing which an affectionate husband 
oueht and could do, to have your difficulties. fully explained, and 
if possible, arranged, but that you suspected it was a mere decoy 
to get you in Virginia, and if you went there, that an interview 
would be refused, and possibly personal violence offered to you. 
This view of the matter I ridiculed as absurd, and I did so, because’ 
I believed the character of the friends of your wife forbid the be- 
lief that they would engage in any such miserable tricks. After 
much conversation upon this point, you replied, that you would 
take my advice, and go to Virginia, and although you strongly 
suspected that I was wrong in my opinion as to the motives which 
dictated the conduct of your wife’s friends, and although you be- 
lieved that it was more than possible that personal violence might 
‘be offered. you, that you would nevertheless, go there wholly un- 
armed to repel it, if offered. I approved of this determination, 
and said, that if 1 should be wrong and you right, in your opinion 
as to the treatment you anticipated, that the only effect would be, 
to disgrace those who could act, as you supposed Goy. McDowell 
capable of acting. 4 
This, I believe, is the subject of the conversations to which 
you have referred. Very respectfully, 
Joun C. Le Granp.” 
My letter of the 26th of March, not being returned to me by 
Mrs, Thomas after a lapse of twenty days, when by due course of 
mail it could have been sent back in seven from its date, I went 
on my way to her father’s. I reached Staunton, thirty-six miles 
this side of his residence, at ten o’clock in the morning. About 
an hour afterwards, Gov. and Mrs. McDowell arrived there in the 
stage from Richmond, accompanied by a gentleman of their family 
connexion. Supposing they were at his home near Lexington, 
and had seen my letter to his daughter, and apprehending from 
their being in Staunton some mistake, and at any rate desiring, 
that our first meeting should not be in the presence of others, I 
walked into the parlor of the tavern and waited for his entrance. 
As soon as he entered, we being in the room alone, J respectfully 
ronounced his name. Without making any answer, studiously 
concealing his feelings and designs, he went immediately out of 
the room. In about half an hour afterwards, the stage for Lex- 
ington came to the door. = 
__ Before his arrival, I had engaged my seat in this stage. When. 
I left the parlor to approach the stage, I found Mrs. McDowell in’ 
it and Goy. McD. standing on the pavement surrounded by & 


48 


crowd of persons apparently waiting for me. Being uncertain of 
the state of Gov. and Mrs. McDowell’s feelings towards me, I 
had not determined to claim my seat in the stage, but leaving my 
overcoat in the house, approached him that he might indicate our 
relations.. He rudely asked where I was going, and said I should 
not travel in that stage. Before I could reply to his last remark, 
he struck at me with an umbrella. I jseized it immediately, and 
was wresting it from him, when his friends interfered and prevent- 
ed me from striking a blow. If he designed to settle our difficul- 
ties in this disgraceful manner, it would bave been much more 
manly to have attempted it when we were alone in the parlor to- 
gether, and not to have waited until he was surrounded by his 
friends, who refused me even the vulgar justice of fair play. 

After such a cowardly. outrage as this, hardly sensible of the 
presence of a lady, Mrs. McDowell having in the meantime re- 
treated from the stage, he having disappeared, I insisted upon my 
right to the stage, entered it accordingly, and left my unmanly 
assailant to provide for himself another conveyance. This dis- 
creditabl reencounter, is stated thus particularly to rectify public 
judgment with regard to it, many details being-omitted. 

It is not difficult fo determine, that, this alleged repugnance to 
travel with me in a public stage was but a shallow pretence. No 
dispassionate person can read this statement and hesitate to say, 
that the condescension in that respect would haye been;all on my 
part. Gov. McDowell, I am credibly informed, declared when 
leaving home to be inaugurated, that he would make no further 
opposition to the re-union of his daughter and myself. Immedi- 
ately after, it has been shown, he commenced sending to me pub- 
lic documents, that could be to me of value only as evidence of 
the courteous state of his feelings, as far as I was concerned. This 
was continued during the whole session of the Legislature, -until 
I had réceived from him more than fifty such papers. When con- 
fronted with him at Baltimore, his conduct was most respectful, 
conciliatory and kind. When we were in Washington city on 
neutral ground, he made no demonstrations of hostility. "When we 
were alone in the parlor at Staunton he retreated. It is equally 
easy therefore, to decide, that his mock indignation and one of his 
customary scuffles in a crowd, was buta desire to cover the with- 
drawal of a daughter who could not be defended. But I am not 
prepared, as I desire to be, to characterise with perfect coniaence 
the whole infamous proceeding. That cannot be done, unless pub- 
lic opinion in Virginia shall compel its chief magistrate to meet 
me as I have proposed, before a court of equity, so that all parties 
concerned may be witnesses, and all these transactions, and the” 
actors in them, be made to stand up in their true colours before 
the public eye. Without that, I may fail to make others feel as I 
feel, the vast difference between the real and the theatrical charac- 
ters of the performers in this drama, wherein are nicely blend- 
ed, fine sentiments and foul actions. 


4g 
eo | proceeded on my way to Lexington, where I must have arri- 
ted very late at night. ‘Twelve miles on this side of that place, I 
accidentally discovered, that Gov. McDowell had put in the mail 
a letter addressed to some one ia Lexington, and had told the 
driver of his carriage he need not keep up with mine. 
Apprehending that I might be and indeed was to be assaulted by 
a mob, in the dark, on my arrival in Lexington, while my Staunton 
assailant would be out of my reach, I determined not to enter the 
lace that night. The next morning; the following note, sent to me 
by express, showed, that my apprehensions were well-founded : 
“‘ Lexineton, 19¢h April, 1843. 
Gov. Thomas,—Circumstances compel me to address this note 
in justice to myself and family. I cannot receive you as a guest: 
The community is so much enraged against you, that the conse- 
quences will be serious. Let me, as a Publican, beg of you not 
to come to Lexington. Yours, A. T. Stoan.” 


Mr. Thomas,—The above letter was forwarded you by my 
_ young man at Mr. Layman’s tavern. Mr. Thomas, my regard for 
you is sincere, and again, do not visit Lexington at this time. I 
I could see you I could detail the. matter more fully. 
Yours, -) A. T. Stoan:” 


The next day, EF ascertained, that Gov. McDowell’s letter was ad- 
dressed to the postmaster at Lexington, and that immediately after 
the arrival of the stage, although it was after 11 o’clock at night, 
Several persons were at the tavern in pursuit of me, clamoring 
against me for having, as they said, driven Mrs. McD. out of the 
stage; a piece of information they could not have kad but from 
some one who had witnessed the scene at Staunton. I learned 
from the same friend, that Mrs: Thomas was at her father’s house 
in the neighborhood, and after detaining my letter ten or twelve 
days had sent it back to Annapolis. Refusing to be content with 
any verbal statement, and insisting upon hearing directly from 
herself, I received the following letter : 


, “ Cort-Atto, Saturday, April 22,1843. 

Your letter dated ‘“‘ Annapolis, Saturday, March 26, 1843,” 
containing the sentence, ‘If all my attempts to producé our recon- 
ciliation and re-union must be fruitless, envelope this and return’ 
it through the mail. If otherwise, retain it, and accept the eter-. 
nal gratitude,” &c., &c., was received on Saturday the 2nd of 
April; and was-retained a few days, that it might be seen by my 
father and mother, whom I was daily expecting. But their 
absence being prolonged, I feared to delay any longer, lest the’ 
delay might occasion some misconception of my motive, and act- 
ing upon the dictates of my own judgment, and without constraint — 
from any one, I accepted your own proposition, and, on Tuesday; 
the 11th of April, enveloped your letter, and returned it unan- 
swered to you at Annapolis, by mail—thereby bringing to an end 
all intercourse between us. 8S. C. P. THomas: 

Fo Francis Thomas.” t 


50 


This letter was conclusive proof to me that she was co-operating 
with her friends. By inculcating the contrary belief many of my 
friends and some of her friends, it will be perceived, had kept me 
silent and passive, while other friends of her’s were warring mer- 
cilessly on my reputation. It was in truth a state of profound and 
generous peace on my part ; of incessant and cruel vituperation on 
theirs. This letter has dissipated all my delusions as to the pos- 
sibility of her affection, and left me at full liberty to enter upon my 
own defence. ‘ 

On my way back, at Staunton, I learned that Gov. McDowell ’ 
had left that place armed with two loaded pistols, notwithstand- 
ing which he avoided the taverns on our way where the stage was 
to stop, although one of them was kept by one of his family con-. 
nexion, and I was unarmed. I learned there also, that two men 
were mounted on horseback to ride to Lexington and notify cer- ~ 
tain persons J was in the stage; and was told by a respectable wit- 
ness, who is known to me, that an individual stood mn the crowd 
during the rencounter at Staunton, with his hand on a loaded pis- 
tol, ready to shoot me if it had become necessary. Nothing but 
the fact of my being without a weapon to draw to compel the mob 
to stand off, it is possible prevented the execution of a most das- 
tardly purpose. It is impossible to reflect upon these base and 
cowardly proceedings, without expressing the utmost contempt 
and abhorrence for the character of the principal figure in the 
piece, the man who degrades while he occupies’the chair of chief 
magistrate of a gallant State like Virginia... In keeping with his 
calumnies on my conduct to his daughter, he has grossly misrep- 

_resented this affair at Staunton, and made it necessary for me 
thus to expose the conduct of a man who indulges with impunity 
the most unworthy malice and the basest passions cloaked under 
professions of religion from customary responsibility, and under- | 
takes to vindicate his own honor and the honor of his family, in 
a miserable scuffle in a friendly crowd, who he was well advised 
would protect him from injury. 

If any further insult had been necessary to restore gradually my 
independence, it was not long before it was offered. At a fair in 
Lexington not very long after this, Mrs. Thomas made her ap- 
pearance, bringing with her a figure dressed in boys’ clothing, on 
the collar of which was pinned the word ‘‘Governor,” and to other 
parts of the dress of which were attached scraps of dogrel rhyme, - 
all in her own hand writing, and offered it for sale to the highest 
bidder, while she herself flaunted about the room, boasting of her 
youth, health, and good spirits. This indecent and unfeeling at- 
tempt to make a man ridiculous, who from an unwillingness to 
wound her sensibilities was enduring a mountain of unmerited ob- 
loquy in silence,,served to satisfy me that I need not postpone my 
own vindication, under an apprehension that her mortification 
would be very poignant even at exposures like these. My bitter 
reluctance to mortify her mother was diminished somewhat by this 
same proceeding, as_it must have had her sanction, and was par- 

p 


en 


‘ey’ 





“ADATIOO LYUAATVO 

























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































ADDRESS 


DELIVERED AT THE 


ANNUAL COMMENCEMENT 


OF 


CALVERT COLLEGE, 


AlevGdlindsor, Carroll County, Wd. 


ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1851. 


By ALFRED C. GOWEN, Esa. 


BALTIMORE: 
_ PRINTED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO. 
No. 178 MARKET STREET. 
1851. 





poj3l/ms 


Zo 

00 Sa Pak 2 he 

[drt 
4 ued ut. Ad 
nf O 
Py Pe habe Ade 
Cartvert CoLiece, Sept. 20th, 1851. 
Arrep C. Gowen, Esq. 

Dear Sir,—The Students of Calvert College, sensible of the high honor 
conferred upon them by your able and eloquent address, delivered on the 18th 
inst., present to you, through us, their sincere thanks, and respectfully solicit 
a copy for publication 

With sentiments of the highest regard, 
We remain your humble servants, 
BASIL M. WARFIELD, 
RICHARD D. POOLE, 
CHARLES E. DeVALIN, 
GEORGE S, RIEMAN, Committee. 
JOSIAH H. SLINGLUFF, 
HENRY McNORRIS, 
MORDECAI C. McKINSTRY, 


PuiLapevruia, Sept. 25th, 1851. 
Gentlemen, 
With the warmest thanks for your kindness, I herewith transmit you a 
copy of my address, and remain 
Your obedient servant, 


ALFRED C. GOWEN. 


Messrs. Bastr M. Warrie.p, Jostan H. Suinexurr, 
Ricnarp D. Poors, Henry McNoraris, 
Cuarues E. DeVanin, Morpecar C. McKinstry, 


Gerorce S. Rimman, Committee. 





ADDRESS. 


° 
RESPECTED AUDIENCE, AND 
GENTLEMEN OF CALVERT COLLEGE: 

I HAVE come to your Annual Commencement, in obedience 
to the call of your respected President, to contribute my mite 
to the festivities of this intellectual jubilee. I am sure, that in 
selecting me to deliver the address, upon the present occasion, 
he has allowed his judgment to be blinded by partiality and 
kindness for an old friend and fellow-graduate; or, he would 
have assigned the task, if such it can be called, to some one 
better qualified to instruct and amuse you. 

It has been remarked, somewhere, that to moralize is one of 
the lowest efforts of the human intellect; should you be inclined 
to assent to the truth of this proposition, and to think that I 
have adopted that easy mode of discharging my duty, you will, 
at all’ events, give me credit for a becoming degree of modesty, 
if you find nothing else worthy of commendation. I have 
chosen a subject, which, to a large portion of my audience, 
will not, I trust, prove either uninstructive, or uninteresting; 
and, which, it seems to me, judging from the little attention, 
which has generally been bestowed upon its consideration, is 
not uncalled for, and will not perhaps prove inappropriate to the 
present occasion. All of you, Gentlemen, will, in a few short 
years, quit these academic groves, sacred to learning, to science, 
and above all, to virtue and friendship, and enter upon the 
business of life. How dear are these scenes; how happy are the 
days spent here! You do not yet know. And, alas, you will 
only know by retrospect from the dim future; nor, will you 


8 


ever sufficiently appreciate this green and sunny spot in the 
desert of life, until, like the mariner in the storm, you remem- 
ber the secure harbor you have left behind; and, cast a longing | 
glance towards that loved spot of land, which has receded from 
your eyes. But, still, Gentlemen, is the voyage to be under- 
taken, and it is important that you should be familiar with the 
chart, and look well to the state of your vessel;—that the voyage 
should not be too difficult for your strength; and, that, when, 
after mature reflection, you have pitched upon the proper course, 
your sails should be so trimmed as to withstand the storms, you 
must necessarily expect to meet. Many there may be, some, 
even here, who have started before you, and started upon the 
wrong course. Many of the rocks, upon which thers have 
split, are laid down upon the chart:—And, you should note well 
their position. Some, indeed, are born for the mighty deep; 
whilst others, who, like the ancient navigators, should have 
crept timidly along the shore, have gone down in sorrow and 
remorse, often, in obloquy and dishonor, lamentable, but useful 
examples, could we but take warning by their fate, of the dan- 
gers of pride, of vanity, of an overweening self-confidence, and 
of the neglect of self-culture and of self-knowledge. 

I propose, then, to offer a few remarks, hastily thrown to- 
gether, the result of some little observation, upon the importance 
of a proper selection of a pursuit in life; and, also to say some- 
thing of the manner in which it should be followed, and of the 
objects which, we keep in view while engaged in it. I said the 
result of some little observation, for, the profession, to which I 
have the honor to belong, has afforded signal and lamentable 
instances of the folly and misfortunes of those who enter a pur- 
suit, for which they are all unprepared, by any previous syste- 
matic course of education; and, without the requisite talents, 
which might enable them, to overcome the defects of early edu- 
cation, if indeed, they possessed taste or genius for the pursuit; 
which latter qualities, I take to be indispensable to success in 
any profession, business or occupation. 

If a mechanic is desirous of performing some great physical 
movement, he selects an instrument capable of effecting the 
desired end. Archimedes might have moved the world, if he 
could have found a fulcrum for his lever, but surely it would 
also have been a desideratum, that the lever should have been 


9 


of sufficient strength, and capable of supporting the great. orb 
of the world. Now, is it not of essential importance, that, in 
looking, to use plain language, for something to do, we should 
select something which we ate CAPABLE OF DOING;—SomE- 
‘Hine for which we possess the physical and intellectual quali- 
fications;—Something in which, under Providence, the great 
Disposer of events, we may engage with some hope of attain- 
ing success, at least, as far as our imperfect and clouded reason 
enables us to judge of the future. Of one thing we may be 
very certain,—it takes no Prophet to predict that those, who 
rashly engage in any pursuit, without the necessary abilities, are 
sure to meet with failure and disappointment; and to afford us, 
if you will allow me to make use of a homely but instructive 
illustration, a practical verification of the doctrine intended to 
be conveyed by the fable of the Ox and the Frog. The in- 
tellectual and physical powers of men are as various, as the 
pursuits which engage their attention. Certainly, the mental 
powers present an almost infinite variety, dwindling down by 
imperceptible shades, from the highest to the lowest degree; 
presenting in some individuals, those sublime powers of mind, 
which have given to the world, a Bacon, a Newton, a La Place. 
In others, the mental powers so feeble, so contracted, that the 
munificent charity of the present age, in extending to them its 
protection, has found a most noble and proper object for its ex- 
ercise. Between these extremes, how many intermediate de- 
grees; and what, it is important to remark in this connection, 
what varieties of talents, of taste and of genius!—It is no part 
of my present task, to enter ito a metaphysical discussion of 
the reason of these diversities in the powers of the human mind; 
or, to assign a cause for the various talents or tastes of mankind. 
It is enough, for our purpose, that these diversities exist, and 
exist, I will hazard the assertion, in spite of education, and not 
through the perversity of the individual, but, because education 
cannot confer intellectual power, where it is altogether wanting, 
or exists only in a very limited degree; nor can it supply taste, 
genius or talent for any particular avocation. You cannot cause 
plants to grow, in a barren soil; and no education can supply 
the absolute want of the reasoning faculties. In speaking of 
the powers of the mind, it is a fallacy, to predicate of education 
the term supplying, it does not supply. It has been well re- 


10 


marked, that it “‘educes, leads out, improves, enlivens, increases 
and perfects’’ the innate powers of the mind; but, how can it 
' give the germ, which is the gift of the Gods? Circumstances 
perform, undoubtedly, an important part in increasing, or re- 
tarding the developement of the rational powers and affections 
of the mind. And, of course, to a different degree in different 
individuals, depending for the force and permanency of the im- 
pression, on a pre-existing state of things, on what I shall call, 
no matter how incorrectly, if it conveys my idea, the natural 
powers of the mind; and, undoubtedly, to a certain extent, on 
impressions previously formed. 'The same remarks apply to 
the diversities of taste, in different individuals, and, to capacity 
or genius for particular pursuits. You cannot educate a man 
to become a poet, a painter, a sculptor or an orator either; al- 
though, it has been said, that a poet is born, and an orator is 
educated. Could a Homer, a Virgil or a Milton, by any pro- 
cess, teach a man to produce those sublime poems, which are 
the wonder of the world? How shall Horace impart the fire of 
his genius;—a Shakespeare, the ‘thrilling music of his magic 
verse ;’’—or, a Moore, the sweetness of his strains? What Phi- 
dias or Praxiteles shall educate any man, to that lofty intelli- 
gence of the ideal, which has manifested itself in the life-like 
productions of the great Sculptors? Or who shall teach him 
to make 


‘* Niobe grieve in stone again?” 


What Ctesislaus shall instruct him to chisel in marble that half 
living, half dying expression which has come down to us, in 
the statue of the dying gladiator? What Apelles shall bestow 
upon him, the “gift of a Painter’s eye?’’ Or, who shall teach 
him to rival the graceful productions of the pencil of Raphael? 
Or, what great Orpheus, of the lyre, shall educate his ear, to 
the appreciation of divine strains; or put music in his soul? 
What great Orator, either ancient or modern, shall give him 
that rude, sonorous and inborn eloquence, which flowed in co- 
pious torrents from the mouth of a Patrick Henry? 

It was once a favorite but now an obsolete idea, that every 
thing in the intellectual and moral system was the result of 
education. Place every human being, if it were possible, in 


11 


the same situation; give them the same facilities for developmg 
the powers of the mind, and for improving the taste; and, how 
soon would you see some, in this intellectual race, pass the goal 
with “ lightning like rapidity;’’ whilst, others break up at the 
start, or lag wearily along the road. Now, I take it, that these 
diversities exist in all the qualities of the human mind; diver- 
sities, in the powers of the intellect; diversities of taste, of talent 
and of genius, which are not always capable of being controlled 
or moulded by education. 

The same may be said of the physical strength of men, and 
it affords me an opportunity of illustrating what I mean. He, 
who is born with the sinews of Hercules, may develope, to a 
still greater extent, the strength of his muscles, and perform 
new wonders. So may the Lilliputian;—but still you have the 
difference between the giant and the pigmy. One cannot per- 
form the-task of the other, without degradation on one side, or 
a certainty of failure on the other. You may develope the 
faculties of both, but, how shall you change their relative posi- 
tions ? 

«*Piomies are pigmies still, 
Though perched on Alps.” 


And yet the world presents to us the singular spectacle of many 
of these Pigmies upon Alpine heights; and, of many a noble 
intellect debased by low and trivial occupations. How many 
““mute, inglorious Miltons’’ have passed to the tomb? How 
many chained and intellectual Sampsons have died and left no 
mark? It would be both instructive and amusing, if we had 
time, to enter into a speculation of how much the world has 
lost from the misapplication of talents. Of the injuries, which 
society and individuals have received, from incompetent men, 
engaging in improper pursuits, both our reading and our obser- 
vation enable us to speak positively and feelingly. 

Men do not succeed in what they undertake, because, they 
make an injudicious selection of an occupation; or, because 
they have wickedly, rashly and without due consideration en- 
gaged in a pursuit, for which, a little reflection must have taught 
them, they were physically and intellectually unqualified. Their 
want of success, they impute to improper causes. They blame 
their friends;—lament their fate, and tell you that the Gods are 


% 


2% 


12 


unpropitious. Perhaps, this is a fruitful source of many of the 
crimes and follies of mankind,—men do not succeed in their 
pursuits;—their failure often gives them a mortal disgust of the 
world; and a useless and misspent life often has its cause and 
origin in the fatal mistake, of selecting a pursuit without refer- 
ence to the possession of those qualities which are essential to 
success. Let no man estimate lightly the consequences of 
making a bad selection. It is not easy for every man to retrace 
his steps or retrieve the consequences of his errors. The thoms 
he reaps, ‘are of the tree he planted,’’ but the discovery comes 
all too late; he is overcome by that sickness of heart and disgust 
of the world which men are weak enough to succumb to, when 
their hopes have been disappointed and their ambition blasted; 
unless indeed, he possesses that unusual strength of mind, 
which sometimes manifests itself in misfortune; that divine light 
of reason, of philosophy and of religion, which burns the more 
brilliantly, as the darkness thickens around him;—which can 
alone illuminate his path, while he struggles through the night 
of misfortune; and which never grows dim, until the full splen- 
dor of the morning sun has again burst upon his delighted 
vision. But, let no man flatter himself, that this divine light 
will. be vouchsafed to him, or that he possesses sufficient fortitude, 
to bear the misfortunes often incident to an injudicious selection 
of a pursuit; or, that when he discerns them, he can readily 
retrace his steps.—Like ignorant and careless children he has 
wandered into the woods, with the intricacies of which he is all 
unacquainted:—he loses his way, and makes no progress; he 
finds no land-marks, by which to guide his steps, and when the 
heavens are over-cast and night comes on apace, he discerns 
through the overhanging clouds no star of hope:—he yields 
ingloriously to his fate, and looks upon death as the only refuge 
from his woes. Should the clouds break away, and the sun 
come out in his splendor, and the rainbow of hope overspread 
the whole arch of heaven;—should kind friends lead him into 
another, and an easier path, his energies are so worn out, his 
limbs are so sore and feeble, that he mistrusts the glorious signs 
of hope, and cannot be incited to renewed exertion. 

Can there be any doubt of the bad results of an improper 
selection of a pursuit, or, can there be a doubt that many crimes 
are directly traceable to this source, and that it is often the cause 


13 


of a misspent life; and that to it many a premature grave is 
indebted for its occupant? Did you ever possess a valued friend; 
—endeared to you by many tender recollections, by the memory 
of many happy College hours spent together, by the memory of 
many noble qualities of head and heart, for whom perhaps you 
had predicted a brilliant future?—And did you ever hear that 
such an one had been cut off in the morning of life;—gone 
down, it may be, to the grave in sorrow and dishonor ?—Doubt- 
less, the news was unexpected ;—you were shocked at it recital, 
and, perhaps, made some inquiries into the reason. You found 
that the history of his life was easily told, and one, with which 
you were already familiar;—that his case was but one among a 
thousand:—that he found the details of his occupation uncon- 
genial to his tastes, and soon abandoned it for the more alluring 
pursuit of vice,—vice, that takes possession of every unoccupied 
and unguarded avenue of the mind, and always exhibits her 
prostitute figure, wherever she thinks the unwary will seek a 
refuge from their troubles, in her contaminating embrace! But, 
had he been engaged in the legitimate pursuit of a well selected 
occupation harmonizing with his tastes, in -which his labors 
were given with pleasure, how could he have been attracted by 
her lascivious glance; or, if she had enticed him for a moment, 
would not the first polluting kiss have driven him back to gaze 
again with renewed admiration upon the lovely face of virtue; 
firmly resolved never again to withdraw from her approving 
smiles. 

In addition to all this, let every man, who has the least 
anxiety to discharge his duty, recollect that by engaging in a 
pursuit for which he is incompetent, and which can be followed 
by no useful result, he inflicts a positive and negative injury 
upon society. He has no right, on the one hand, to make 
society the victim of his incompetency: nor, on the other, to 
deprive it of those talents, whatever they may be, which God 
has given him for some useful purpose, which it shall be his 
business to discover. 

The history of the world presents us with numerous instances, 
some of which you doubtless recollect, and which I should be 
happy to mention if I had time to verify the accuracy of my 
historical recollections by actual reference, of men in high places, 
which they do not owe to their own abilities, but to chance, to 


14 


rank, to wealth, to political bribery and corruption; or, to a 
peculiar combination of circumstances; of weak statesmen who 
have driven the ship of state on the rocks, or, timidly kept her in 
shallow water, with her sails half furled, when she should have 
floated securely and majestically on the great deep. Perhaps, 
we may, not without reason, congratulate ourselves, that our 
country is tolerably secure, and that, owing to the wisdom of 
our institutions, it is not altogether within the power of any 
man, or set of men either through incompetency or design, 
entirely to subvert them. Our political constitution is young 
and vigorous, the body politic may receive many a stab, and 
the wound may close and leave no ‘‘scar behind.’? Our ship 
of state has been so well built, her timbers have been so well 
put together, she is made of such good materials, she has seen 
so much hard service, that we begin to think, she can’t be 
wrecked and to calculate that we could effect an insurance upon 
her at no very high premium. In times of real difficulty and 
danger, she has always had such good pilots, and her voyages 
have always been so successful, that we make a shrewd guess, 
that she will almost go by herself, and already begin to exhibit 
no little apathy in the selection of her crew. I think the expe- 
riment rather a dangerous one. Weak and bad men may indeed 
put her helm towards the rocks and she may not founder; “the 
dark tempest of disunion’’ may howl around her, and-she may 
outride the gale, the stars and stripes may still float proudly from 
her masts, and 


‘*Merses profundo, pulchrior evenit!”’ 


we may exultingly exclaim; but, surely her seams are not likely 
to become any closer, and, it is to their wxion we should direct 
our attention. Should she lose but a single plank, how soon 
would the waters rush in, and leave her at the sport of every 
wind and wave of faction. 

It should be our business to take care, that incompetent men 
do not get into office; for, in reality the mischief which may 
result from their blunders is incalculable. They are dangerous 
every where and any where, in public as well as in private situa- 
tions. Your own personal observation must furnish you with 
numerous instances of the unfortunate results of an ill selected 
occupation.—Such instances are, unfortunately for us, by no 


15 


meats rare. Have we not seen most righteous causes” lost to 
clients, through the manifest incompetency of their counsel W— 
Have we not deeply sympathized with some eloquent and 
learned advocate whilst he, in vain, endeavored’ to make some 
puffed-up specimen of judicial importance, with a “ mole-eyed 
mind’’ and contracted grasp of intellect, comprehend how some 
important principle of law has a bearing upon the case under 
consideration?—Alas, for him! he has undertaken a hopeless 
task, the learned Judge cannot see it, he cannot understand it, 
though all the time he thinks himself not one whit the less 
learned or the less dignified or the less important. 

Did you ever linger around the couch of some dear friend or 
relative; and watch, with trembling anxiety, the flickering lamp 
of life? And, did it expire, because, he, in whose hands, under 
Providence, were the issues of life and death, was a bungler, 
and did not understand his business?—Well, what is your opin- 
ion of such men ?—In what: estimation will you hold him, who 
sacrifices to his ignorant vanity, which will not permit him to 
understand himself, the property, the health, or the lives of the 
community? Perhaps, he isas much to be pitied as his victims! 
But, what is your opinion of a man, who follows a profession 
for which he knows himself to be unqualified, and who subjects 
his fellow-men to the often disastrous results of his incompe- 
tency? Is he not a robber, and a murderer?—Not, an open 
generous robber, who attacks you on the highway and in the 
light of day, but, a thieving knave, who robs you under false 
pretences! Not, a murderer! instigated to a diabolical act by 
the wild lust of passion, or the desire of revenge; but, a skulk- 
ing assassin, who murders in a way, in which it is difficult for 
the law to take hold of him; for it is no easy matter to prove 
that the patient was the victim of his mal-practice. AIL such 
men have mistaken their vocation, and when they have made 
the discovery, (which however they are often the last to make) 
they cannot conscientiously and without incurring the charge of 
positive crime, continue to subject society to the results of their 
mistakes. 

I have mentioned but a few instances of the direct evils, 
which individuals bring upon themselves and others, by select- 
ing an improper pursuit. I leave it to some more experienced 
hand to fill up the picture. And, believe me, such a picture is 


16 


worthy of the labor of a great artist; and would not be without 
its use in this age of ours,—this nineteenth century ;—this cen- 
tury of true science and of ignorant charlatanism, of great 
learning and of impudent pretension. 

Let it not be said that men do not succeed in their under- 
takings, simply because they are not industrious and persevering. 
As a general proposition it is, by no means, true. But, even 
admitting it to be so, it removes no censure from their shoulders, 
nor, does it disprove a single proposition which I have advanced; 
for, is it not notorious that men are seldom industrious enough 
to overcome the difficulties of a profession or of an occupation 
for which they have no particular liking; and, that, frequently, 
no degree of industry and perseverance can overcome positive 
distaste for any particular avocation?—But, men who have 
made judicious and fortunate selections are generally stimulated 
to industrious exertion by the very love of their occupations. 

The pursuits, which engage the attention of mankind, are 
numerous.—There is a varied field, from which undoubtedly 
almost every man may select something, in which if industrious 
and persevering, (and he is very likely to be so who is fortunate 
in his selection) he may be tolerably certain of succeeding. And 
how much better would it be for himself, for his family, for the 
interests of society, and of the world at large; for the advance- 
ment of trade, the increase of commerce, the improvement of 
agriculture, the progress of the arts, the investigations of science, 
if every man were engaged in that particular avocation, which is 
congenial to his talents: how might those talents then be improved 
and perfected!—how easily could he then swim with the stream 
instead of wearing out his mental and physical energies in strug- 
gling against the current. If this were done, and a generous 
encouragement given to every man, to follow the bent of his 
own genius, what a mighty impetus would be given to the arts 
and sciences?—what treasures might be added to the depart- 
ment of the fine arts? Why could we not attain that lofty ideal 
of excellence, which has characterized every age, in which 
were produced those immortal works of genius which are the 
wonder of the world? Why, might we not possess even in our 
age, artists equal to those who shed upon Greece the full lustre 
of their genius in the age of Pericles? of whose works we can 
alone judge, while mourning over the ruined temple and the 


17 


broken column; or, reverently gazing upon those treasured frag- 
ments, which have escaped the remorseless tooth of time, and 
have come down to us through the lapse of ages: but, whose 
names still live in the recollection of mankind, -associated with 
all that is bright and beautiful! Or, why, might we not look 
upon paintings, the productions of our own artists, equal to the 
Last Supper of Leonardo da Vinci; or, the Last Judgment of 
Michael Angelo? Or, why, might we not rival those pure and 
elegant productions of the pencils of Raphael, of Titian and 
of others, which were produced under the judicious liberality 
and elegant patronage of Lorenzo the Magnificent, of Leo X. 
and of Julius I1? 

How rich, too, should we become in literary treasures:—our 
jewels of real gold, the genuine productions of nature, would 
readily yield to the polish;—our diamonds, as pure and as bril- 
liant as those, which sparkle in the caves of Golconda, would 
reflect alike their own intrinsic excellence and the pains and — 
skill bestowed upon their workmanship. 

Had such always been the case, as to a certain extent, it 
undoubtedly might have been, should we have been obliged to 
witness that deluge of corrupt literature, which, to the disgrace 
of the present age, is overwhelming the morals of the commu- 
nity. The authors of those wretched productions, which make 
up in wickedness, in impiety, in infidelity, in atheism, and in 
ridiculing, all that is really good and noble in human nature; 
and, in pandering to the most depraved tastes, whatever they 
want in eloquence and wit, would have been banished from the 
dominions of literature, or, rather they never would have found 
an entrance within her sacred precincts, which they only pro- 
fane and corrupt. They would have been employed in other 
occupations, suitable to their capacities; would have done no 
harm and, perhaps, have subserved the interests of the commu- 
nity.—And, undoubtedly, if every man had been put in his 
youth to a proper occupation, we may safely affirm, without 
justly incurring the charge of being visionary or utopian, that 
that the world would, this day, present a very different spectacle. 
—A young man, transferred from a proper school, or from the 
parental roof, when the early lessons and practice of virtue are 
still fresh in his recollection, to an occupation for which he has 
taste and capacity, has enough to do in its legitimate pursuit, to 


18 


keep himself from being ‘“‘ blown about by every wind of doc- 
trine’’ or captivated by every modern innovation. Bound by 
the adamantine chain of self-interest, he is very likely to remain 
a good citizen; nor, is he at all likely to be found among the 
number of those promising young men, who boast the advan- 
tages of a modern education, who do nothing and every thing, 
who talk largely of the rights of man; and, are often found 
making inflammatory addresses to the first mob that is arrayed 
against the rights of individuals and the laws of their country. 
Who, when the times are quiet, sink to the bottom amidst their 
native mud; but, when the waters are disturbed, rise to the 
surface and contaminate the whole stream. Nor is he at all 
likely to be found among the number of those modern Philoso- 
phers, who, haying no legitimate pursuit, have assumed the 
glorious task of reforming the world. Men of ‘‘one idea,” 
who, under the magic cry of reform, are busily engaged in sub- 
verting the best interests of society; and who would sacrifice the 
whole world (except themselves) for the sake of a principle. 

In the legitimate discussion of our subject, the question arises, 
how is a young man to discover that pursuit, that “‘ something ”’ 
in which, as Bacon tells us, every man may excel; and, how 
is he to avoid the danger of engaging in one, in which he may 
discover all too late that his expectations of success have been 
founded on no rational hope. 

It appears to me, that young men are in great danger of de- 
ceiving themselves, in the estimates which they make of the 
difficulties incident to the successful prosecution of any profes- 
sion, business or occupation; and, in their estimates of their own 
ability to meet and overcome these difficulties, 

In many cases, perhaps, it would approximate more nearly 
to the truth, to say, that they do not make any estimate at all. 
Most young men, who pass through College, embrace the 
learned professions almost as a matter of course. Probably, one 
- motive, which induces this large accession to the professional 
ranks, is a very unworthy one. Professional avocations are 
looked upon as more respectable, or more aristocratic than: the 
pursuits of trade, agriculture or the mechanic arts. Shall I 
pause to stigmatize such motives as these; or, to point out how 
unworthy they are of American citizens? But, surely men 
greatly deceive themselves in their estimates of respectability. 


19 


It is not the pursuit, but the conduct, the abilities, and the suc- 
cess of those engaged in it, which confer respectability. Now, 
there is nothing less respectable, than a quack or a pettifogger; 
and, one or the other of these appellations, he is very likely to 
deserve, who embraces a profession under the mistaken idea, 
that his diploma is a patent of aristocracy. Other pursuits are 
equally respectable; and the humblest is as much so, if the quali- 
fications of him who is engaged in it, are equal to its requirements. 
I shall pursue this point no further; it is instructive, but, I hope 
unnecessary on the present occasion; as, I sincerely trust, that 
no one, within the sound of my voice, will measure respecta- 
bility by any other standard, than that of personal merit; or, 
acknowledge any other aristocracy, than that of the intellect. 
Horace advises a poet to study thoroughly the nature and 
force of his genius. And, it appears to me that every man 
might profit by the same advice, before he selects an occupation. 
If he thinks of engaging in the profession either of law or 
medicine, let him studiously inquire, what are those qualities, 
which enabled others to succeed. Does he possess those essen- 
tial qualifications; or, is it at all likely, that any degree of 
industry and perseverance will ever enable him to acquire them? 
Is there in the profession which he proposes to adopt, any thing 
uncongenial to his tastes; and, if so, is it probable, that he will 
be either industrious or persevering ?—Has he prejudices which 
will operate to his disadvantage? Can he easily overcome them 
or divest himself of them?—Has he the patience to go through 
a long course of study, and to await the often slow returns of 
professional honors and emoluments; and, as has been well 
asked by an elegant writer on ‘‘ Law Studies,’’ will his mental 
and physical energies not give way, under the constant excite- 
ment and severe labor of a professional life? Let no man think 
this latter question an unnecessary one. Many fancy that pro- 
fessional life is their proper sphere, because they possess feeble 
constitutions. Let not ambition and the possession of the high- 
est and best qualities of the human intellect, induce any man 
to adopt a policy so suicidal. How often have we seen the 
aspirant to professional honor, fall a martyr to his ambition! At 
what short intervals has the laurel been displaced by the cypress! 
Let him, then, who thinks of embracing a profession, answer 
all these questions. If he cannot answer them affirmatively, 


20 


why, then, in the name of all that is rational, let him abandon 
the idea of engaging in a pursuit, which must inevitably bring 
upon him failure and disappointment. But, let him beware of 
mistaking enthusiasm for talent or genius; let him beware of too 
much self confidence, on the one hand, and too much timidity 
on the other. Let him not be deterred from entering, or, let 
him not abandon a profession, because, he cannot attain the 
topmost round of the ladder; for, it is impossible that all should 
do this. The question for him is, can he engage in it without 
a certainty of failure, and without inflicting injury upon others? 
If he has the qualifications to maintain a respectable position, 
and industry and perseverance to overcome its difficulties, why 
then, let him engage in it with all the energy of which he is 
master, Some men possess an almost intuitive consciousness 
of their ability to attain professional distinction; let not poverty 
or want of friends, or deficiencies of early education prevent 
such an one from obeying the divine voice within. It will en- 
able him to surmount all difficulties, and to triumph over all 
opposition. Animated by this consciousness of ability to suc- 
ceed, how many have risen, by dint of their own unwearied 
exertions, from the very lowest depths of obscurity, to the high- 
est eminences of professional distinction!—Many of the greatest 
men of our own country, have risen from obscurity to honor 
and fame. And, if the biographies of all the great men, who 
have lived and died were faithfully examined, I doubt not that 
by far the greater number would be found to have emerged 
from obscure and humble positions. , 

Is this not a confirmation of what I have endeavored to show? 
What, but an interposition of Providence, shall prevent him, 
who follows a profession, in which he has discovered that the 
powers of his mind may be enlivened and improved; and, which 
demands those very qualities, which an intimate knowledge of 
his mental constitution has taught him, that he possesses in no 
limited degree? What shall prevent him, from giving to the 
world another glorious and useful example of the advantage of 
discovering that particular pursuit, for which a man is already 
half prepared by natural endowments? A tree, removed to a 
foreign clime, withers and dies; or, becomes, at best, a sickly 
exotic; but, planted in its native soil, it extends its branches, 
and puts out its foliage to drink in the fertilizing moisture of its 
native heavens; is invigorated by the genial warmth of its native 


21 
sun; proudly withstands the storms of its native sky, and, in 
time, attains a full beauty and majestic growth. 

It is a mistaken idea to suppose, that the professions are the 
only roads to eminence. Sure and certain roads they undoubt- 
edly are, to those who possess great intellectual powers; and, 
who have entered them from those motives, which, as I have 
endeavored to show, should influence a man in the selection of 
any pursuit. But, men may attain eminence, and, perhaps, be 
more deserving of it in various other occupations; and, he, who 
would be out of place in the professional ranks, might, for in- 
stance, if he would but observe the complexion of his own 
mind, discover in the natural charms of agricultural pursuits, a 
suitable sphere for his exertions; might gratify his ambition in 
the wide and extended field they offer for scientific investigation ; 
and, deserve the thanks of the community by doing something, 
likely to be of real and permanent utility; either, by making 
new and important discoveries; or, increasing and enlarging the 
applicability of old ones. And, even he, who has caused two 
blades of grass to grow where but one grew before, is undoubt- 
edly worthy of all commendation. Many, again, who would 
succeed but illy, at other avocations, may reap golden honors in 
the ‘‘busy exchange, and crowded mart;’’ and, possess larger 
means of doing good, than professional men can generally hope 
to attain. 

The mechanic arts afford a wide scope for inventive genius;— 
and, it generally may be discovered, at an early period of life, 
whether or not, we should direct our attention to them. Fond- 
ness for creating and improving, and capacity for producing the 
new and the useful, develope themselves at an early age, and 
are prognostics and indications, which should be of great weight 
in determining their possessor in his selection of an occupation. 
And, whether he be animated, by the desire of winning an 
imperishable name or, by that, which is higher and nobler, the 
desire of discharging his duty in that path, which Providence 
has assigned to him, let him, by no means, disregard them or 
prove recreant tothem. For, it may have been reserved for him, 
to add new treasures to the repositories of science; to astonish 
the world, it may be, by something more useful than the steam 
engine; or, more wonderful than the magnetic telegraph. 

The same remarks may be applied to other pursuits;—to 
Poetry, to Painting, and to Music, which demand “a capacity 


22 


for seeing ’’ and selecting the beautiful.—Genius for these pur- 
suits generally manifests itself early in life, at first, scarcely per- 
ceptible, like the early dawnings of the morning sun; but, let 
not the moral horizon be shrouded by the distracting clouds of 
evil passions, and it shall go, increasing in splendor and bril- 
liancy, diffusing its genial warmth and fertilizing influence, 
until it attain the full radiance of the noon-day sun. 

It would occupy, by far, too much of your time, to go through 
the whole circle of worldly pursuits, and attempt to point out 
what is indispensable to success in each.—Nor, do I feel either 
ambitious or competent to undertake the task.—May not every 
human being possess, by divine appointment, original endow- 
ments; and, can there be a doubt, that it should be his pleasure, 
as it certainly is his duty, to discover what they are, and to put 
them to the proper use? When he has made a proper selection 
of a pursuit in life, let him follow it, with all the energy and 
industry of which he is master; but, let him look well to the 
proper object of any pursuit in this world. 

The object, which actuates most men, is the desire of gain. 
For this they toil and slave; for this, the sacrifice of comfort, 
the neglect of social and domestic duties; for this, the premature 
wrinkles of the brow; and, how often an early grave! How 
many are disappointed in the golden race; the day dreams of 
their ambition are never to be realized.—A tempest, a fire, or 
some dispensation of Providence has disappointed their fondest 
hopes. For them the sun in heaven, has gone down. All 
that, for which they lived, for which they considered life worth 
having, and to which they made every thing else subservient, 
has vanished from their eyes. The vanity of their desires has 
been mocked.—The God of their idolatry, to whom they sacri- 
ficed, it may be, honor, integrity and virtue, has been dashed 
from the altar;—the temple has been overthrown, and the pro- 
fane worshippers buried in its ruins! ‘There are indeed men, 
who can again renew their pagan rites;—whose devotion no 
misfortunes can entirely subdue. But, apart from the uncer- 
tainty of riches, and the manifest folly of placing our whole 
happiness upon that, which is necessarily unsubstantial, and 
which is so often delusive,—what is there in the life or example 
of a man, whose ideas never expand beyond the contracted cir- 
cle of self aggrandizement; who, has no other object than. the 
mere accumulation of money? What is there in his life or 


23 


example, though, his exertions be crowned with complete suc- 
cess; though, he accumulate money, I was about to say to his 
heart’s content, but with him it is as if 


‘‘ Increase of appetite had grown 
By what it fed on. lg 





What is there worthy of admiration?—A man cannot, indeed, 
be blamed, who discharges his duties faithfully to others; and, 
is, at the same, engaged in the honest endeavor to improve his 
condition in life. And, I hope, that no one will understand 
me, as condemning mercantile pursuits, or the desire of accu- 
mulating large fortunes. 

All, that I am contending for, is that we should find some- 
thing else in this world worth living for. All, that I mean to 
inculcate, is, that a man’s heart should not become so much 
engrossed in the pursuit of wealth, that he can discover nothing 
else, in this beautiful world, to admire; nothing to compassion- 
ate; nothing to sympathize with; in short nothing to be natural 
with. Commerce,—trade,—business, let our citizens follow for 
their pleasure or profit. Let our merchants accumulate princely 
fortunes; let them build up, as they have done, our great cities, 
and increase the wealth, the resources and the power of our 
country ;—let the white wings of commerce spread over every 
sea;—but, let not men, in the pursuit of gain, forget that they 
are men ; let them not become mere machines. How often are 
men led away, by the desire of sudden riches, from the paths 
of duty, of honor, and of virtue, into all the intricacies of chi- 
canery, of fraud and of crime! How many, yielding to this 
pervading desire, have meanly and basely been led, to take 
some undue advantage of others; to make use of moneys en- 
trusted to their possession; to embark, with these moneys, some- 
times the property of orphans and of widows, in hazardous and 
visionary speculations! Not that, in the first instance, they in- 
tended to commit crime. They would have shrunk from the 
imputation as sensitively as the purest among you; but, men 
are led on by imperceptible degrees, until, their minds are so 
absorbed, with the desire of speedy riches, that, they become 
unsatisfied with the slow returns of a legitimate business; impa- 
tient, perhaps, of an inferior position; envious of the splendor 
and wealth of others, they are led, almost unconsciously, into 
the commission of positive crime, and are scarcely themselves 


24 


able to recognize the ‘‘rascals,’’ which the world calls them, 
when their deeds are all laid bare to the cold gaze of an uncha- 
ritable public. And, where shall we find language sufficiently 
forcible, to condemn those slaves of Plutus, who “delve in 
Mammon’s dirty mire,’’ for the sake of accumulating what they 
never use!—How are such men requited for the wealth, which 
they leave behind them!—How quickly is it dissipated by impa- 
tient heirs, who never troubled themselves about them, except 
to calculate the probable duration of their lives! 


‘¢ Manifesta phrenesis ut locuples Moriaris 
Egenti vivere fato!’’ 





And, when they leave their wealth to public institutions, or, for 
public charities;—how does the public requite them? Some- 
times indeed, by marble statues, as cold as the hearts of those 
who erect them, and as the lifeless dust they are intended to 
commemorate.—lIs their bier ever hallowed by one genuine tear 
of human sympathy? Who thanks them? Who cherishes their 
memory? And, yet they are often public benefactors!—but, 
benefactors by necessity; benefactors by compulsion; benefac- 
tors for the purpose of carrying out, as far as possible, that one 
idea, from which, living and dying they never swerved: the per- 
petuation of their own estates. And, they generally occupy that 
position in the opinion of mankind, which they deserve.—Infi- 
del to Christianity ; infidel to its divine precepts; infidel to every 
domestic and social tie and to the natural feelings of the heart, 
—they die as they live unloved, without friends; without sym- 
pathy ;—the embodiment of an idea!—and, hold no place in the 
affection, in the respect, or in the esteem of mankind, except, 
that which is always connected with, and never divests itself of, 
the idea of wealth; and, without which it is unappreciable.— 
If, they had died without wealth; if, they had been gathered to 
the tomb, without the means of erecting marble temples to their 
own memory, what act of their’s would preserve them from the 
night of oblivion, in which the majority of mankind are ob- 
scured! 

And, there are many smaller men, who are equally open to 
censure; but, who do not combine with their avarice, those en- 
lightened commercial views and that comprehensive grasp of 
business details, which render the character, at once, detestable 
and sublime—some such men we all know, who live in the 


25 


constant pursuit of gain, and who desire nothing beyond, and 
nothing but gain—such men have no fine traits of character; if, 
they do nothing which is positively bad, they confer no benefits 
upon society, except those which the community always receives 
and, which are necessarily incident to the pursuit of any legiti- 
mate occupation.—Have men of this description a proper object 
in view, in pursuing their business? 'T'o such a question, what 
is the response of every generous mind;—of every man, who 
has got rid of what some would call sickly sensibilities; whose 
finer traits of character have been somewhat effaced by contact 
with the world? For, alas! to a certain extent that must be, 
but, who has still enough of those feelings, ‘‘ which partake less 
of earth than heaven,” to do what in him lays and when the 
occasion occurs, for the amelioration of mankind, who believes 
in friendship, though, he is apt to be somewhat suspicious; and 
who can still drop a tear of genuine sympathy over real misfor- 
tune ;—what would be his answer ?—I need not say, what would 
be yours; or, interrupt the emotions of your hearts, to which 
language is but a weak exponent. 

What has such a man, when prostrated upon the bed of 
death, to console him in a review of his past life? What is 
there, but one long unbroken series of selfish deeds? What 
generous action? What noble sympathy? What benefits con- 
ferred? What actions for the amelioration of individual man, 
or of mankind, hover, in the shape of good angels, around 
his couch; shedding upon his dying hour, the grateful memory 
of the past; whispering hope for the future; and, (to borrow 
from a beautiful German allegory), ready to accompany him in 
his last journey, beyond the prison of the grave, and to plead 
eloquently before the very throne of God, obtaining mercy and 
grace? 

How then is it with him? Is his dying hour disturbed by 
the recollection of golden opportunities of doing good neglected ? 
Do they now ring in his ear, the prayers of the orphan and the 
widow, whom he has neglected? Do those, to whom he has 
meted out merely the legal requirements of human justice, who 
is represented blind and with no eye of mercy, range themselves 
in spectral solemnity about him, as the shadows of death and 
the night of the grave gather around? Do they point to the 


writing on the wall; and, can he interpret it? Or do all the 
4 


26 


misdeeds of an ill-spent life, come in the shape of demons to 
torment his dying hour, and give him timely warning to prepare? 
Alas, for him!—he is not so fortunate.—In these dread moments, 
the one absorbing idea of his life gives place to nothing else; 
and, the gold jingles in his hand, as the last breath of life rattles 
from his throat.—And, what he often carries with him to a dread 
eternity is neither hope of heaven, nor fear of hell; but, love 
for that, of which he has made no good use in this world; and, 
which cannot buy his salvation in the next. O, then! beware 
of too much covetousness, which the great Apostle of the Gen- 
tiles has called the root of all evil, and placed by the side of all 
unrighteousness. It is said to be the vice of old age;—but, like 
every thing else the seeds are planted in the spring time, and 
yield their baneful crop, at a more advanced period. Of what 
evils, is it not the source! How many ties has it severed! Hu- 
man nature may well weep at the spectacle of children almost 
quarrelling over the bier of their father, for the possession of his 
property!—the worm of covetousness has gnawed and gangrened 
their hearts, before the worm of the earth has made his hated 
repast. Covetousness is indeed the ‘root of all evil.’’ It has 
made war, and concluded peace. It has polluted the sanctuary 
and taken the offering from the altar. It has entered the tem- 
ple of justice, and “bartered the majestic wrinkles of her brow.”’ 
It made a suicide of Judas, and a traitor of Arnold! 


There is another error into which men fall; and that is, in 
making the acquisition of fame, the sole object of their exertions: 
the error, indeed, of noble natures. And, unfortunately it often 
commands our respect, when it really deserves reprobation. 

They are willing to be good (indeed) if goodness will confer 
greatness; but, the struggle is for greatness. Policy, not prin- 
ciple; expediency, not justice is made the gauge of every act. 
Such men estimate the value of a measure, not by its excel- 
lence, nor by the benefit it will confer upon the community, 
but by the amount of popular applause with which it is likely 
to be followed. They, seldom or never derive happiness from 
the conscientious discharge of regular duties. Every thing is 
referred to results. They consider themselves fortunate, per- 
haps, when the path of fame is also that of duty; but still the 
question is always, how far each act will advance their interests, 
or swell the measure of their fame! The danger is that men, 


27 


unless controlled by strong principles of justice, will, as has often 
been. the case, sacrifice every thing human and divine, at the 
shrine of their ambition. 

Wealth, gentlemen, is uncertain, and often eludes our pursuit. 
Fame is not always desirable, and is at best, but a transient 
flame, kept alive by the fickle breath of popular applause!— 
These should not be alone the leading objects of our lives. 
They are too unsubstantial in their character, to afford perma- 
nent happiness; and the cup is too often dashed, untasted from 
the lips. But, surely, there are other objects, which we should 
propose to ourselves; objects, higher, nobler, greater far than the 
acquisition of wealth, or fame; but, not incompatible with either; 
—and these objects may be all embraced in one comprehensive 
word, Duty! 

There is then, gentlemen, an ambition, which is worthy of 
cultivation. It is not the ambition of conquest, or the desire to 
captivate the minds of men.—It is an ambition which purifies 
while it elevates, and which can make men heroes, without 
making them slaves; an ambition, which is ever guided by the 
light of reason, of humanity and of true religion; and which 
has in it, nothing of folly, of fanaticism, or of modern philo- 
sophy!—It is, simply, the ambition to discharge our duty, in 
whatever condition of life we may be placed. And, what may 
he not accomplish, who makes duty his leader; and, like a good 
soldier, is ever ready to obey her commands? His deeds, judged 
merely by their effects, dwindle into insignificance, when com- 
pared with those of the great statesman, or the great conqueror; 
but, if we could lay bare his heart, how should we yield our 
unfeigned admiration! how much richer in deeds of real honor 
and of true bravery! Search not, always, the biographies of 
great men, or the records of great events for examples. It is in 
the walks of every day life, that you will find men, who obey 
the voice of duty, at all hazards and at all risks; at the sacrifice 
of comfort, of friends, of health and of life itself. ‘Their cha- 
racter is eminently self sacrificing ;—their heroism the most exalt- 
ed ;—their victories, victories over self and the passions of human 
nature ;—their triumphs solitary and unattended by the voices of 
applauding thousands;—their reward an approving conscience! 
But, there are examples of men, who have been actuated by 
this ambition, who have achieved as much, and bequeathed to 
posterity as bright a name—(aye, and how much better and 


28 


purer,) as any who have toiled for the mere love of fame. I 
shall make no apology for detaining you a moment longer, 
while, I direct your attention to the character of the illustrious 
general and statesman of our revolution. And, may the day 
never come, when, an American audience shall grow weary of 
hearing his name; or, when that name shall fail to awaken in 
every bosom a thrill of affectionate admiration. I ask you to 
imitate his character and to emulate his virtues; and, when I 
ask you to imitate the character of George Washington, I do not 
ask you to go beyond the sphere of your own pursuits however 
humble they may be. I do not ask you, to imitate him as a 
conqueror, or as a statesman. But, imitate his inviolable attach- 
ment to duty. An eminent gentleman,* lecturing on the cha- 
racter of Washington, referred every action of his life to his 
attachment to duty; and, made it the basis and ground-work of 
his whole character. And, that pure and splendid character is 
but little understood and not fully appreciated by those, who 
measure their admiration by the illustrious deeds, which have 
made the name of Washington immortal. Attachment to duty 
characterized every action of his life; and, his character would 
have been as worthy of your imitation, if he had never left the 
shades of Mount Vernon to achieve the independence of his 
country. 

The path of duty, gentlemen, is not always an easy one; it 
has its rugged cliffs and steep ascents; but, when you have 
arrived at the journey’s end, the setting sun of life will shed a 
parting tinge over the whole road, which you have travelled, 
and exhibit it clearly to your view ;—and, if it illuminate a path 
from which you have never deviated, your satisfaction will be 
great in proportion to the magnitude of its difficulties, 

I must draw these remarks toa close. The subject is sug- 
gestive; but I have already trespassed too long upon your kind 
attention, and occupied too much of the time of those, who are 
looking eagerly forward to the possession of their well merited 
rewards; but, surely that time will not be lost, if any one indi- 
vidual shall happily be induced by any suggestion of mine, to” 
select a suitable occupation; and, still less will you have cause 
to regret its sacrifice, if I have offered him a single incentive 
to virtue. 


* Bishop Potter of Philadelphia. 








MARYLAND, 


TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 





MARYLAND, 


TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO: 


A DIS COURSE 


BY 





DELIVERED IN BALTIMORE, 


BEFORE THE 


MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, 


ON DDS 


SEVENTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION; 


M AY. 2 Gees; 


“MARYLAND is (not an Island as is reported, but) part of that maine adjoining to Virginia, 
only separated or parted from Virginia, by a river of ten miles broad, called Patomack river,— 
the commodities and manner of living as in Virginia, the soile somewhat more temperate (as 
being more northerly) many stately and navigable rivers are contained in it, plentifully stored 
with wholesome springs, a rich and pleasant soile, and so that its extraordinary goodness hath 
made it rather desired then envied, which hath been fatall to her (as beauty is often times to 
those that are endued with it) and that the reader may thoroughly be informed how she hath 


suffered, I shall in brief relate and conctude.”—* Hammond’s Leau and Racnen, 1656.” 


JOHN D:. TOM, PRINTER: 


TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. 


A scarrotp hung with black, and closely guarded by a 
strong military force,—a pale, trial-stricken man, bending his 
prematurely gray head to the block,—the rise and flash and 
fall of the executioner’s axe,—and the uplifting of that gory 
head before the eyes of the spell bound multitude, with the 
cry,—‘ This is the head of a traitor !”,—these were the cen- 
tral and significant facts that saluted the eyes and absorbed 
the attention of the people of England, that thrilled Europe 
with horror, that startled kings on their thrones, that stirred 
new hopes in the hearts of the far-sighted among the people, 
a little more than two hundred years ago! 

With his last breath, Charles I. proclaimed his adherence 
to those principles, his endeavor to uphold which brought 
him finally to the scaffold; asserting, as he knelt down for 
his last prayer, and with his hand almost upon the axe which 
was to be the keen arbiter between him and his subjects, that 
his cause was just; that a disregard of the sovereign’s prero- 
gative had been the principal cause of the contest just con- 
cluded; that the people had no right to a share in the govern- 
ment; and never, until this truth was distinctly recognized, 
would the country be blessed with liberty and peace. And 
that one warning word, addressed by him to his solitary com- 
panion, before he knelt to receive the fatal blow,—how full 
of mystery, yet how full of meaning! ‘* Remember,’’ said he, 

2 


6 


solemnly, to that faithful bishop, who had performed for him 
the last offices of religion,—‘* Remember !”? What he meant 
by that simple utterance, probably no man present of that 
gazing multitude knew,—no man since has ever known ; but 
like those words of Holy Writ, to which some believers attach 
a primary and higher, as well as a literal meaning, it carried 
with it a grand significance ;—and, though uttered with the 
faint whisper of a dying man, went out in trumpet tones to 
principalities and powers ; bidding oppressors to take heed to 
their ways, warning the people not to forget their rights as 
men and their slumbering but mighty power, and calling on 
the civilized nations of the world to study and profit by the 
lesson, presented in that day’s solemn and bloody spectacle. 

Such was the termination of that great drama, in which 
Charles had been a prominent actor; and in which, by his 
exaggerated estimate of the kingly prerogative, by his blind- 
ness to the spread of true ideas of political and religious 
liberty, by his weak subterfuges and despicable insincerity, 
by the bigotry of his religious and the obstinacy of his politi- 
cal advisers, he had been led into straits from which there 
was no escape; and found, in the executioner’s axe, the only 
means of unloosing the Gordian knot of difficulty and distress, 
in which he beheld himself entangled. 

The seeds of this revolution had been planted long before 
the reign of Charles. For long years, the rulers of England 
had manifested a disposition to make the royal prerogative 
override the privileges of Parliament and the liberties of the 
people; while the perception of public rights and the disposi- 
tion to assert them, seemed to bear an inverse ratio to the 
despotic acts of the sovereign and his bold assumption of 
regal immunities. But, when the weak, pedantic James came 
to the throne, those who had shrunk in silence from the 
frown of the imperious Elizabeth, began to regain a portion 
of their manhood and to assume the port of freemen. The 
House of Commons did not hesitate to tell him, that the “‘pre- 
rogatives of princes do daily grow,”’ while “ the privileges of 
the subject are at an everlasting stand ;’”’ and declared that 
respect for the late queen’s sex and age, and disinclination to” 


7 


stir up controversies that might endanger the succession, had 
alone made them pass over invasions of their rights, which 
they had hoped to see redressed ; but instead of having their 
expectations realized, ‘“‘not privileges only, but the whole 
freedom of the Parliament and realm had been hewed from 
them.” 

James, on his part, affirmed that the wit of neither man nor 
angel could devise an answer satisfactory to those who thus 
addressed him, ‘‘ unless he would pull the crown, not from his 
head only, but from those of his posterity, and lay it at their 
feet ;”? and swore, as God should be his judge, he would 
rather live a hermit, than reign over such a people as that 
“¢ pack of Puritans,’’ who formed the opposition in the House 
of Commons. Accordingly, the toil of his life was, to pre- 
serve intact that prerogative which he regarded as the corner 
stone of the throne ;—to strengthen that Church of which he 
was proud to be called the head; to crush that Catholicism 
which denied his supremacy, and hatred to which, by long 
indulgence, had almost become an additional faculty of the 
English mind ; and to eradicate that Puritanism, which was 
synonymous, not only with opposition to compulsory con- 
formity to the established church, but also with resistance, 
open or secret, to the encroachments of the crown upon the 
rights and liberties of the people. 

Hopeless of ever enjoying, in their native land, those civil, 
and more than all, those religious rights which to them were 
the essentials of life, companies of those who had been perse- 
cuted for faith’s sake sought in a foreign land homes and 
places where they might worship undisturbed ; whence, after 
years of endurance, they again migrated, to find on the north- 
ern shores of the American continent a place of refuge ;—to 
make the rock of Plymouth one of the foundation stones of a 
great temple of civil and religious liberty ;—to be themselves 
the seed of a nation, destined in after times to people a conti- 
nent, to become the beacon light of oppressed Humanity, the 
moral controllers of the destinies of nations. 

_ Not less severe were the measures pursued by the king, 
and in this case with the hearty approbation of the great 


8 


mass of the people, against the older branch of the Christian 
church. To the Roman Catholics, was denied by law the 
public and even the private exercise of the rites of their 
religion, the privilege of having their children baptized by 
their own clergy, or of educating them at seminaries conduct- 
ed by teachers of their own faith ;—they were forbidden to 
come within a fixed distance of the city of London, and their 
priests, found in the country, were liable to seizure, imprison- 
ment, and even death. ‘To this policy James adhered, until 
a desire to obtain a fitting match for Prince Charles, a pros- 
pect of replenishing his empty coffers with a magnificent 
dowry, and the hope of thus effecting the restoration of his 
son-in-law to the Palatinate, led him to a negotiation with 
the king of Spain, for the purpose of bringing about the 
union of the Infanta with the Prince of Wales. Parliament 
and people were horror stricken at the idea of thus matching 
their prospective king with a princess of the proscribed faith ; 
but neither argument nor remonstrance could move the king 
from his purpose ;—he continued the negotiation, sought a 
dispensation from the Pope, engaged that the princess should 
be unobstructed in the exercise of the rites of her own 
church, bound himself by secret articles to relieve the Roman 
Catholics from the oppressions under which they were groan- 
ing, and forbade the enforcement of existing penal laws 
against recusants, Jesuits, and Seminary priests. 

At this period, when Charles made his romantic incognito 
expedition to Spain, and was expected soon to bring home 
the Infanta as his bride, the hopes of the Catholics were 
raised to the highest pitch. A revocation of all acts against 
that sect was confidently anticipated ; many of the prominent 
courtiers revealed their adherence to the Catholic faith; and 
it was foretold by one, familiar with the under-current of 
events in the court circle, that, at the Infanta’s coming, many 
more ‘ would fall away from the church of England, as fast 
as withered leaves in autumn.”’! 


' Letter from John Chamberlain, Esq. to Sir Dudley Carleton, April 19th, 
1623. 


9 


Among those who steadily upheld the public policy of 
king James, and who earnestly promoted the Spanish match, 
was Sir Grorce Catyert, one of his Majesty’s principal 
Secretaries of State. Bred a Protestant, he also was led to 
acknowledge the authority of the church of Rome, though, 
like many other courtiers, about that time converted, he did 
not at once avow the change that had taken place in his 
religious views.! In private, however, he maintained the 
forms of worship peculiar to that faith, and instructed his 
children in its doctrines; facts which were without doubt 
known to his royal master, but were overlooked in considera- 
tion of the valuable services he had rendered in connection 
with the Spanish alliance, and in view of those articles in 
the marriage treaty, approved by both king and secretary, in 
which liberty of worship in private was to be conceded to 
the professors of the Roman Catholic faith. 

In the midst of the joy occasioned in England by the 
announcement of the Prince’s safe arrival in Spain, and his 
distinguished reception by the royal family and favorable 
regard by the Infanta, Sir George Calvert received a proof 
of the favor in which he was held by the king, in the form 
of a grant of a portion of the island of Newfoundland, of 
which he was made by charter, (April 7th, 1623,) absolute 


' The exact period of Lord Baltimore’s conversion cannot now be fixed ;— 
but there can be no doubt that he was a Roman Catholic in sentiment for some 
time before he retired from office and publicly united himself to the Church of 
Rome. Ina work written by a contemporary, and attributed to Bishop Good- 
man, himself of a strong Catholic tendency, we have the following statement, 
“As he (Secretary Calvert) was the only Secretary employed in the Spanish 
match, so undoubtedly he did what good offices he could therein for religion’s 
sake; being infinitely addicted to the Roman Catholic faith, having been con- 
verted thereunto by Count Gondomar and Count Arundel, whose daughter Sec- 
retary Calvert’s son had married. And, as it was said, the Secretary did usual- 
ly catechize his own children so to ground them in his own religion, and in his 
best room having an altar set up, with chalice, candlesticks, and all other orna- 
ments, he brought all strangers thither, never concealing any thing, as if his 
whole joy and comfort had been to make open profession of his religion.””— 
Court of James 1st, vol. 1, p. 376. 

From this statement, we may infer that Lord Baltimore’s mind had begun to 
incline towards Catholicism, at least two or three years before his retirement 
from office in January, 1625. 


10 


Lord and Proprietary. There, about the time of the landing 
of the Plymouth pilgrims, a settlement had been formed 
under his auspices, which now assumed a distinct colonial 
existence, under the name of Avaton. ‘This colony, how- 
ever, did not, like that of Plymouth, have its origin in a 
desire to enjoy a religious faith unmolested. For himself, 
Sir George Calvert had no occasion to provide a place of 
refuge, as he was high in favor at court, and a prominent 
agent in the king’s favorite plan,—that of matching Charles 
with the Infanta, which seemed on the point of consumma- 
tion; and, as for the Catholics in general, their hopes of 
toleration under a Protestant prince had never been fairer ; 
and there had not been, for years, so little inducement for the 
members of that communion to expatriate themselves, or so 
little apparent probability of the necessity of such a course, 
as when, under the new charter, the Proprietary made fresh 
exertions to strengthen and extend his colony on the island 
of Newfoundland. 

As an officer of the crown, and we may presume, from 
sincere conviction, Sir George Calvert zealously sustained 
the public policy of his royal master, and labored to uphold 
that prerogative, which he regarded as an essential attribute 
of kingly rule. But his political horizon was suddenly oyver- 
clouded, by the unexpected failure of the negotiation for the 
Spanish match, almost at the moment when its consumma- 
tion appeared so certain, that James exultingly declared, 
‘Call the devils in hell could not break it.”? As a conse- 
quence, Calvert lost ground in the Council, and ultimately 
resigned his office of Secretary of State ;—but the king, well 
satisfied with his past services, created him Baron of Balti- 
more in Ireland, and, notwithstanding his Catholic tenden- 
cies, continued him a member of the Privy Council. Thus, 
one of the last acts of that weak monarch’s life, was the 
bestowal of honor, in the face of party opposition and not- 
withstanding his change of faith, on one who had long been 
his zealous and devoted servant. 

The accession of Charles to the throne, brought no cessa- 
tion of that struggle which had already commenced, openly 


11 


on the floor of Parliament and in the halls of justice, and 
silently among the masses of the people, between prerogative 
on the one hand, and the liberty of the subject on the other; 
on the contrary, his devious and deceptive course soon aggra- 
vated existing difficulties, and pushed matters beyond the 
possibility of a peaceable adjustment. At last, finding he 
could neither cheat nor cajole the popular leaders, nor bend 
Parliament to his own wishes, Charles suddenly dissolved 
that body, prohibited even the mention of its re-assembling, 
and commenced the desperate experiment of governing Eng- 
land, free from the restraints of that legislature which had 
proved itself so determined to thwart the royal will, to crush 
the royal favorites, to overthrow monopolies, and to abridge 
the royal power. 

It was at this critical period, (January, 1630) that Sir 
George Calvert, now Lord Baltimore, and a professed Roman 
Catholic, returned to England. At the accession of Charles, 
he had hesitated to take the oaths of allegiance and suprem- 
acy, and was therefore left out of the Privy Council, when he 
retired to his estates in Ireland. Thence he was called to 
Court in March, 1627, having been selected as a most fitting 
person, to act as one of the Commissioners to meet at Brus- 
sels, for the purpose of negotiating a treaty of peace with 
Spain, which, however, was not then accomplished. Three 
months after, he sailed for Avalon; and finding the colony in 
a flourishing condition, returned to London, and again, with 
all his family, except Cecilius, his eldest son, embarked for 
Newfoundland. ‘There, he rendered good service by protect- 
ing with his ships the English fishermen in those waters, 
while he endeavored to build up and consolidate his settle- 
ment. A fair trial convinced him, that in such a climate and 
locality, there was little hope of the success of his plans of 
colonization ;—he, therefore, in the summer of 1629, sent his 
children to England, and with his lady sailed for Virginia, 
where he arrived in October of the same year. The arrival 
of a visiter so distinguished caused some excitement at James 
City; and the authorities inquired why he, the Governor of 
another colony, had abandoned that and come to theirs. ‘To 


12 


seek a plantation and dwelling place among you,” was his 
lordship’s reply. ‘‘ Very willingly,” answered they, ‘ pro- 
vided you will take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, as 
we have done, and which we are obliged, by the royal order, 
to exact from every person, who becomes a member of this 
colony.”? A modified form of the oath was proposed by him 
as one which his obligations as a Catholic would allow him 
to take ;—but the Governor and Council, moved without 
doubt by that jealousy of Catholicism which was felt by the 
colonists as well as by the people of the mother country, 
(though professing to act solely upon the royal instructions,) 
declined to admit into their community a man, however dis- 
tinguished, ‘‘ who was unwilling to acknowledge all the pre- 
eminences belonging to his majesty,” and prayed him to make 
provision to depart from the colony by the next ship that 
sailed for England. He complied with their request; but 
not before he had examined the broad bay of “¢ Chesapiack,” 
the islands that stud its surface, the beautiful rivers which 
flow into it, especially from the west, and the rich and invit- 
ing country which, almost without an inhabitant, except a 
few savage tribes, spread out upon its borders. 

From this remark must be excepted, however, a large 
island in the bay, on which Capt. William Claiborne, a mem- 
ber of the Council of Virginia, and a man of great energy and 
untiring enterprise, had established a trading settlement, and 
to which he had given the name of Kent: as also an island 
in the mouth of the Susquehanna river, on which he had 
placed an advanced post to facilitate his trading operations ; 
both of which he had purchased of the native chiefs, besides 
taking up lands upon each, according to the custom of the 
country, at that period. 

Leaving his lady and servants behind, Lord Baltimore pro- 
ceeded to England, hoping that, by a personal appeal, the 
king might be induced to relax in his favor the regulation in 
regard to emigrants to Virginia, and accept of a modified 
form of oath; but he was disappointed. His application was 
ineffectual, and he found himself under the necessity of fitting 


13 


out a vessel (February, 1630) and sending her. to Virginia, 
to convey his lady and servants to England. 

The two years succeeding Lord Baltimore’s return to Eng- 
land, were crowded with stirring and important events. On 
the continent, was raging that fearful struggle, which was 
destined to depopulate the cities and blast the soil of central 
Europe ;—in which the spirit of Catholicism battled with the 
spirit of the Reformation; and the great Gustavus, the cham- 
pion of the Protestant cause, found a fitting field for the dis- 
play of his grand military genius, competitors worthy of his 
fame, and a glorious end, at atime when- the laurel was 
greenest upon his brow, and before full success or imperial 
power had too severely tested his sincerity and his self-com- 
mand. In England, too, was commencing a struggle, that 
was to outlast that going on among the states of Europe, but 
the elements of which were not essentially different ;—preroga- 
tive against public right ;—the court against the people ;— 
the prescriptions of the established church against the claims 
of dissenting sects to worship according to the dictates of 
their own consciences. The king had thrown down the 
gauntlet ; the best men of the country had not hesitated to 
take it up; and the people listened to the controversy and 
watched the aggressive and defensive movements of the 
respective parties, until the sympathy with their own cham- 
pions became deep and abiding, and the general watchword 
and rallying cry became, ‘the liberties of the free-born sub- 
jects of the realm.” 

It was during this period that Lord Baltimore, having’ 
relinquished the hope of obtaining admission into the colony 
of Virginia, conceived the design of obtaining from the king 
a grant of a portion of that territory which he had visited on 
the shores of the Chesapeake, and there carrying out those 
plans of colonization, which had failed on the frozen and 
barren isle of Newfoundland. His application was success- 
ful; and a charter was prepared, similar in its provisions to 


‘In a letter addressed by him to Strafford, from his “lodging in Lincoln’s 
Inn Fields,” on the 11th of October, 1631, he condoles, with his friend on the 
recent loss of his wife, and assures him that nothing but the * urgent business 


3 


14 


that which he had received for Avalon, and to one which had 
been granted five years before to the Earl of Carlisle, for the 
West India islands; but before it passed the great seal, he 
died, leaving his eldest son Cecilius, to carry forward the 
enterprise, in which he had felt so deep an interest. Two 
months after his death, (June 20th, 1632,) the necessary 
formalities were completed, and Cecilius Calvert, the second 
Lord Baltimore, became the titular absolute Lord and Pro- 
prietary of Maryianp. 

The announcement of the new grant called forth a strong 
remonstrance from the planters of Virginia against this. divi- 
sion of their territory and interference with their trade in 
the “Great Bay ;”—but the Privy Council decided (July, 
1633,) that Lord Baltimore should be “left to his patent and 
the petitioners to their remedy at law, as they desired.” 
Opposition was not wanting also from parties in England, 
hostile to the plan of the new colony. False and exag- 
gerated representations were made through the Attorney 
General before the Star Chamber relative to the designs of 
Lord Baltimore ;—that he intended to carry nuns into Spain 
and soldiers to serve the king ;—that his ships had left Graves- 
end without due authority from the Custom House ;—and 
that his people had abused the king’s officers and refused to 
take the oath of allegiance. But Calvert succeeded in shew- 
ing the falsity of all the charges brought against him, and at 
the end of about eighteen months from the time the Charter 
passed the great seal, all obstacles were overeome, and his 
‘ships, which had been detained in consequence of these 
false reports, were allowed to depart. In November, 


which he has in hand” prevents him from starting at once for Ireland, to com- 
fort his friend in his affliction. Strafford’s Letters, vol. 1, p. 50,—quoted by 
Anderson in his History of the Colonial Church, vol. 2, p. 113. 

1 So says Chalmers. I have attempted, through the aid ofa correspondent in 
London, to obtain the charter of Avalon, for the purpose of comparing it with 
that of Maryland, but have not yet succeeded. 

* These particulars are drawn from a letter from Calvert to Strafford, written 
January 10th, 1633-4, after the sailing of the expedition, in which he gratefully 
acknowledges, that, «by the help of some of his Lordship’s good friends and 
his own,” he has been enabled to overcome opposition and send a hopeful 


15 


1633, the Ark, bearing the fortunes of Leonard Calvert, the 
brother of the Proprietary, and nearly two hundred settlers, 
preceded, as in the old diluvian time, by the Dove, went forth 
in quest of that spot of western earth, upon which they might 
set foot, with the hope of peaceful enjoyment of civil rights 
and religious opinions, and the organization of a prosperous 
community.1_ Many of the first adventurers were Roman 
Catholics ;—many, especially of those who went in the capa- 
city of laborers or servants, were Protestants ; and with the 
expedition sailed two brethren of the Society of Jesus, not 
only to act as spiritual guides of the colonists, but ready also 
and anxious to endure exposure and suffering, for the sake of 
spreading the seeds of Christian truth among the aboriginal 


tribes. 

On their way, the voyagers visited the island of Barba- 
does, to establish relations of trade and obtain certain needed 
supplies ; but it must have possessed an additional interest 
in their eyes, from the fact that its inhabitants had been 
living and greatly prospering for several years, under a 


colony into Maryland. In the same letter, he also states that two of his 
brothers have gone, “with very near twenty other gentlemen of very good 
fashion, and three hundred laboring men, well provided in all things,”— 
Strafford’s Letters, vol. 1, 178, quoted by Anderson. 

One of the brothers mentioned, was Leonard, the Governor of the colony ;— 
the other was George; who, I think, settled and died in Virginia. 

‘Lord Baltimore’s original intention was, to lead his own colony to Mary- 
land; but circumstances induced him tochange his purpose. That the impres- 
sion prevailed in England, that his Lordship intended to follow his brother 
Leonard, with a second body of emigrants, is evident from a petition presented 
to the Privy Council in November, soon after the sailing of the Ark and the 
Dove. Itappears that <‘ Gabriel Hawley, servant to Lord Baltimore,” had bil- 
leted upon certain citizens of London, several men and women destined for 
Maryland, who finally sailed without payment having been made for their 
entertainment; whereupon the parties presented their accounts to his Lord- 
ship; but he referred them to Hawley, who unfortunately was then under 
arrest for debt, and confined in the Fleet prison. The petitioners then applied 
to the Privy Council to order Lord Baltimore to satisfy their demands “ before 
he sailed for Maryland;” but we are not informed whether their prayer was 
granted, or in what manner the claim was adjusted. See Vol. lof Asstracrs 
presented to the Md. Hist. Society, by George Peabody, Esq., of London ;—under 
date of November, 1633. 


16 


charter: similar to that under which they were about to 
establish themselves in Maryland. The islanders had not 
arrived at their present point of strength and prosperity, how- 
ever, without a severe struggle and a contest at the very 
commencement of their settlement, with previous occupants 
of a portion of the soil, who claimed rights under an original 
grant from James I. and a subsequent one from Charles. 
Could the Maryland colonists have looked forward into the 
future, they would have been startled to see re-enacted in 
their own history, the events that accompanied the establish- 
ment of the colony at Barbadoes; and, even with the pros- 
pect of ultimate success, would have shrunk from a contro- 
versy, entailed upon them by the double dealing or careless- 
ness of their time-serving king. As they coasted along the 
West India islands, the lovers of the marvellous among the 
crew and the credulous among the passengers, were aroused 
by the report, that in that region existed an animal, in the 
head of which was set a precious stone that shone with 
inconceivable splendor. ‘The more refined among the colo- 
nists, familiar with the language of the great dramatist, 
whose genius was then new to the world, may have been 
reminded by this fable of those lines in which he compares 
Adversity to the toad, which, 


“ugly and venomous, 
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head ;”’ 


and the after experience of all certainly taught them, that, 
though no such creature was to be found within the limits of 
their territory, there was abundant opportunity for them to 
gather from stern trials and adverse events, the jewels of 
patience, firmness, and perseverance, with which alone, in 
any enterprise, man is able to purchase success. 

Arrived at Point Comfort, they were agreeably surprised to 
receive a courteous greeting from Sir John Harvey, the 


1 The Earl of Carlisle was made absolute Lord and Proprietary of all the 
Caribbee islands, including the Barbadoes, Jan. 2nd, 1627 ;—and his charter, 
so far as I have been able to compare it with Lord Baltimore’s, was the same as 
that granted for Maryland. 


17 


Governor of Virginia, from whom they had rather appre- 
hended opposition; and there, among the Governor’s attend- 
ants, Leonard Calvert met for the first time Capt. William 
Claiborne; to whose energy and enterprise the colony of 
Virginia had been indebted for the exploration of the bay, 
and the establishment of a profitable Indian trade from Kent 
and Palmer’s islands. 

By the aid of Capt. Henry Fleet,: an Indian trader from 
Virginia, selection was made of an eligible situation for the 
new settlement, on the site of an Indian village; and on a 
branch of the beautiful Potomac, with appropriate religious 
and civic ceremonies, was established St. Mary’s, the capi- 
tal of the colony of Marytanp. Now began in reality the 
trials of this little band of adventurers in the wilderness. The 
energy and ability and sterling character of Leonard Calvert, 
the zeal and self-sacrificing spirit of the missionaries, would 
each furnish topics for a volume; and the pens of valued 
members of this society have paid a richly merited tribute to 
both ;—I may, therefore, without exposing myself to the 
charge of want of appreciation or neglect, pass by these 
themes, in order to dwell, on this occasion, on the character 
and development of the people, their relation to the Lord Pro- 
prietary, and the causes which were in operation to affect 
their intercourse with and confidence in him, and to modify 
the social, civil, and religious institutions of Maryland, two 
hundred years ago. 


‘Capt. Fleet, though a member of the Virginia colony, was induced by 
Leonard Calvert “to accept a proportion in beaver trade to serve the Maryland 
colony,” of which he was for several years an active and useful member. The 
unwillingness of the Virginians to part with him, may be inferred from the fact 
that, on the 11th of May, 1636, the Governor and Council of Virginia, on the 
plea that “ the instant danger and necessity of the colony exacteth this so strict 
a course,” authorised Lieut. Richard Popely ‘to proceed in a vessel with the 
first fair wind and weather into the Chesapian Bay and into a river or creek 
thereof, in pursuit and inquiry of Capt. Henry Fleet; and to apprehend him 
and bring him prisoner to the Governor.” The expedition was not successful ; 
or if Capt. Fleet temporarily visited James City, to assist his old friends in their 
negotiations or contests with the Indians, he returned again to St. Mary’s. He 
finally left Maryland, however, and again took up his residence in Virginia. 
Virginia Records, 


18 


There were three prominent causes, which, from the very 
commencement of the enterprise, tended to render the task of 
the Proprietary a most difficult one, and to make his effort to 
govern and guide his colony, for many years, a continual and 
oftentimes apparently a desperate struggle against individuals 
and events. In the first place, he had to encounter the set- 
tled opposition of the Virginians to the legality of his charter, 
and the determined efforts of Capt. Claiborne to maintain his 
claim to rights of settlement and trade on Kent and Palmer’s 
islands ;—secondly, his own construction of his proprietary 
rights, as absolute Lord, with royal jurisdiction, over the 
province, was in direct antagonism with those high ideas of 
the liberty of the subject, which prevailed in England at that 
period, and which the greater part of the colonists undoubt- 
edly brought with them ;—and thirdly, he was of the pro- 
scribed Roman Catholic religion; and therefore, though fully 
trusted by those of the same faith, was, from the beginning, 
closely watched at home, and an object of jealousy to most 
of those in the colony, professing the Protestant doctrines, 
whose numbers increased much more rapidly than that of the 
Catholics, and whose distrust on this point kept pace with 
their numerical increase. ‘These influences were modified 
and aggravated by the disturbed state of public affairs in Eng- 
land, the aspect which the struggle between Charles and the 
Parliament finally assumed, and the influence which political 
and religious developments in the mother country, of neces- 
sity exerted over the position and fortunes of the Proprietary, 
and the opinions and actions of the colonists. 

A full discussion of the influence which the causes just 
mentioned exerted on the condition of the colony during 
the first twenty years of its existence, would lead me fairly to 
detail the long misrepresented proceedings of Claiborne ;—to 
show what questions of conflicting right arose between the 
Proprietary and the people, and how they were adjusted ;— 
to sketch, as illustrative of these and of the influence exerted 
upon the political and religious sympathies of the colonists, 
by the progress of events in the mother country, the promi- 
nent incidents connected with Ingle’s rebellion ;—to show the 


19 


origin and aim of the famous Act of Toleration of 1649 ;—and 
to trace the course of events, by which, just two centuries 
ago, Lord Baltimore was deprived of his jurisdiction, and 
Maryland was reduced under the government of the Common- 
wealth of England; while the principles of absolute lordship 
and royal jurisdiction were discarded from its code, as subver- 
sive of the rights of the people, and unfit to be exercised by a 
subject of that government, which claimed to have put down 
absolutism in the person of the king, and to have trampled the 
insignia of royalty under its feet. But, to do justice to all 
the subjects enumerated, would occupy a much longer time 
than that usually allotted for the delivery of a public address. 
I propose, therefore, after sketching the prominent events 
connected with the early progress of the colony, to discuss 
the origin of the “Act of Toleration”’ of 1649, and the events 
connected with the reduction of Maryland to Parliament in 
1652; not because they present strongly attractive points for 
illustration, or are especially interesting to myself; but because 
they come nearest in point of time to that period in the his- 
tory of the colony on which I have determined to dwell, and 
mark also important epochs in the religious and civil progress 
of the province. 

In the discussion of these topics, I shall speak with the 
utmost freedom. I have studied the history of Maryland with 
a deep respect for the high qualities of its founder, and an 
equal regard for the admirable traits of character manifested 
by the earlier colonists in their difficult enterprise; but I do 
not conceive myself bound or even permitted to add a single 
light to the picture, for the sake of emblazoning their merits 
in the eyes of their posterity, or to temper a single shade, 
with a view of covering the weaknesses or the faults, to which 
as men, they must have been subject. The desire to magnify 
the merits of our ancestors, is a common, and in the estima- 
tion of some, a pardonable weakness ;—but he who know- 
ingly attributes to the men of the Past, deeds which they never 
performed or motives by which they were never actuated, 
distorts the characters he professes to draw, misleads those 


20 


whom he pretends to instruct, and proves himself unworthy 
of confidence. The simple truth, as to men and actions, 
should be the great aim of historical narration; and sincerity, 
diligence, freedom from prejudice, and an extended survey of 
the causes of events and the characters of individuals and 
nations, are essential requisites of the Historian. 

He who endeavors to obtain a distinct view of the events 
of long past time, has, in many respects, similar precautions 
to take and similar difficulties to encounter, with him who 
endeavors to extend the range of his vision into the remote 
realms of space. ‘The shades and cross reflections of preju- 
dice, the indistinctness engendered by distance and interpos- 
ing events, and various other causes, serve to obstruct his 
view, and to give him but a faint or distorted image of the 
objects he wishes to survey ;—and it is only when he has achro- 
matized his mind, purified himself from all bias and excite- 
ment, and brought the persons and events that he wishes to 
examine fairly within his field of vision, and poured upon 
them the light of truthful inquiry, that he can hope to obtain 
views of them, worthy the efforts of an honest mind, and wor- 
thy the attention and confidence of honest men. Guided by 
these principles, I shall proceed to detail the facts which I 
have collected, and the inferences which I draw from them, 
without pausing to inquire, whether they conform to what has 
been said by others, whether they flatter or wound the pride 
of parties and sects, whether they confirm or contradict the 
assumptions of those who would glorify their country, their 
state, or themselves, through the merits, real or imaginary, 
of those who have gone before them. 

I must also remark, that the period which I desire to illus- 
trate is singularly barren of romantic or startling incident ; 
and that the topics which I propose to discuss, afford few 
materials for rhetorical flourish or oratorical display. My 
aim, on this occcasion, is, rather to deal in facts, however 
humble, than in speculations, however novel ;—+to elicit truths 
rather than to form theories ; to impart some useful and relia- 
ble information, relative to an interesting period of our colo- 
nial history, rather than to amuse or excite those who honor 


21 


me with their attention, by highly colored pictures or a decla- 
matory harangue. 


For nearly four years after the settlement of St. Mary’s, 
Claiborne, though notified by Governor Calvert that he must 
consider himself a member of the new colony and submit to 
its regulations, persisted in his refusal to acknowledge Lord 
Baltimore’s proprietary rights over Kent island, and con- 
tinued his traffic with the Indians. His justification for this 
course, consisted in a letter from the king, declaring that he 
never intended to grant Lord Baltimore any lands already 
occupied, forbidding the people of Maryland or Virginia to 
disturb or molest him in his plantation, and continuing to 
him freedom of trade, notwithstanding the Maryland patent ;— 
in a formal determination by the Council of Virginia, (in 
answer to his request for advice what course to pursue,) not 
to relinquish their jurisdiction over the island ;—in the 
general sentiment of the people of that colony in his favor 
and against Lord Baltimore; and in his own firm conviction 
of the justness of his cause. 

A little more than a year after the landing of the colonists, 
two collisions took place, (April 23rd and May 10th, 1635,) 
on the waters of the Chesapeake, between parties of Clai- 
borne’s men and an expedition from St. Mary’s, sent out by 
Governor Calvert for the purpose of putting a stop to their 
trade; in the former of which, one of the Marylanders and 
three of the men of Kent, including Claiborne’s deputy, 
Lieut. Ratcliffe Warren, were slain. Virginia was at this 
time in commotion, on account of the deposition of the over- 
bearing Governor, Sir John Harvey, by the people; and it is 
by no means improbable that his known good will towards 
Lord Baltimore, and his want of sympathy with Claiborne, 
were the immediate causes of the popular outbreak that 
resulted in his removal, and his transportation to England, 
accompanied by commissioners instructed to lay the com- 
plaints of the colonists before the king. It may have been 
owing to a participation in this movement, that Claiborne, 


22 


who had no reason to be friendly to Harvey, was not present 
at either of these rencounters.? 

It was not until near the close of the year 1637, that Cal- 
vert found himself strong enough to compel Kent island to 
submission; when Claiborne, seeing the futility of any further 
attempt at resistance, departed for England, to lay his case 
before the king in person and ask redress of his wrongs. 
Shortly after, an Assembly was held at St Mary’s; and before 
this body sitting as a court of justice, was brought one 
Thomas Smith, who had recently been arrested on Kent 
island, charged with piracy for his participation in one of the 
collisions that occurred in the Bay, three years before. A 
disagreement which had already taken place between the 
Proprietary and the people, left the authorities in a singular 
dilemma. The colonists, ina purely democratic Assembly held 
in February, 1635,2 had adopted a body of laws and sent 
them to Lord Baltimore for his concurrence. He, claiming 
himself the initiative in legislation, refused his assent; and in 
return, transmitted to the colony a code, which was brought 


1 In September, 1634, Lord Baltimore sent instructions to his brother, to seize 
Claiborne and detain him a close prisoner at St. Mary’s, in case he persisted in 
his refusal to recognize his Lordship’s patent, as covering Kent island. Early 
in October following, the commissioners of Maryland complained to the Goy- 
ernor and Council of Virginia, of ‘evil practices by Capt. Claiborne with the 
Indians, (a point which had been suggested by Lord Baltimore,) to the subver- 
sion of both colonies;”’ for which, says the old record, ** he was confined at James 
City till witnesses could be examined against him.” In December, 1634, ‘the 
complaint of the Maryland Commissioners against Claiborne was heard, and 
witnesses examined and he and the deponent, &c., sent to England.” If these 
entries (which are not original) in the Virginia records, are accurate, Claiborne 
was on his way to, or was in England, when these collisions took place; but I am 
inclined to think them incorrect. A Report of the Committee of the Navy, 
made in December, 1652, says, ‘“‘after three years suffering, Col. Clai- 
borne was forced for safety of his life, to fly into England.” No evidence, I 
believe, exists, that he appeared in England for trial in 1635, or that he was 
there before the commencement of the year 1638. 

? The first movement in the colony of Massachusetts towards forming a body 
of laws, was made about the same time ;—May 6th, 1635. For want of positive 
laws, it was then agreed, ‘‘ that some men should be appointed to frame a body 
of grounds of laws, in resemblance to a Magna Charta, which, being allowed 
by some of the ministers and the General Court, should be received for funda- 
mental laws.— Winthrop’s Journal, 1, 160. 


23 


before this, the second Assembly of which we have any 
account ;—but, though strenuously supported by the Gover- 
nor and a few of his friends, was, by a large majority, 
rejected. A committee was appointed to draught another 
code, to be sent to the Proprietary; but in the mean time, 
the colony was without local laws, by which to try the party 
accused of piracy. This want of laws, however, was not 
allowed to obstruct the administration of justice. Smith, on 
the ground that the Assembly of 1635, had enacted that all 
offenders in murder and felonies should suffer the penalties 
provided by the laws of England, was regularly indicted, 
brought before the House of Assembly, tried, found guilty of 
piracy, and condemned to death ; by a vote in which six of the 
colonists, who had been present at the affrays in the Bay 
and testified before the grand jury that found the indictment, 
participated. The accused, a person of education, demanded 
benefit of clergy, which was refused; and he was probably 
soon after hung.!' So ended the first capital trial in Mary- 
land. 

While his unhappy follower was thus atoning for his resist- 
ance to the power and orders of the Proprietary, Claiborne 
was in the presence of the king, urging, with all the fiery 
energy and determination that marked his character, his 
claims for redress; and making propositions for a grant, which 
would have given him thirty-six miles of territory on each 
side of the Susquehanna, and opened a way for a communi- 
cation and trade with the Lakes bya route, the advantages of 
which are at this moment engaging the attention of the capi- 
talists and men of enterprise of our city and state. His case 
excited the sympathy and his proposals obtained the favorable 
regard of the king, by whom they were referred to the Lords 
Commissioners of Plantations; but with that body, Lord 
Baltimore’s influence prevailed; Claiborne’s claim to Kent 


1 Capt. Claiborne, as administrator of the estate of Capt. Thomas Smith, 
«shewed (June 30th, 1640,) to the Court at James City, he had paid as far as 
assets would go, and was discharged.” This was probably the party who was 
tried and condemned to die, in Maryland. 


24 


island was pronounced unfounded, and Lord Baltimore’s 
exclusive right to regulate the Indian trade within the limits 
of his province, distinctly affirmed. 

It is a curious commentary on the comparative policy of 
courts, if not on the justice of this decision, that the same 
argument which was ineffectually urged, as to Kent island, 
before the Commissioners of Charles, was put forward by 
William Penn before those of James II. with entire success. 
Claiborne maintained that the grant to Lord Baltimore was 
only of ‘lands uncultivated and uninhabited, except by sav- 
ages;”’ and claimed that Kent island, having been settled and 
recognized as a constituent portion of Virginia before the 
charter, could not justly come under his jurisdiction. His 
objections were put down by the Commissioners of Charles, 
as invalid. Penn, nearly fifty years after, insisted that a 
Dutch settlement existed on the west bank of the Delaware, 
at the time of the granting of the charter; and as it covered 
only lands unoccupied, it did not include that tract; and the 
Commissioners before whom he appeared, so far recognized 
the validity of his plea, as to frame an award which ultimately 
gave him the Lower Counties, (now the State of Delaware,) 
a region fifty times as large as that claimed by Claiborne, and 
as distinctly included within the limits fixed by the charter, 
as Kentisland. If there was justice in one award, there was 
injustice in the other; and as we contrast the historic repu- 
tation and comparative success of the two parties, we are 
forcibly reminded of the appositeness of the lines of the poet : 


«A saint may do, without the least suspicion, 
Deeds that would sink a sinner to perdition.” 


Relinquishing all hope of regaining for the present what he 
still regarded as his property, yet trusting that the time would 
arrive when he might re-assert his rights and obtain redress, 
Claiborne returned to Virginia. On his arrival there, he 
found new causes for hostility to Lord Baltimore and his. 
brother, in the severity which had been exercised by Gover- 
nor Calvert against his friends on Kent island, the condemna- 


25 


tion and execution of Smith, his own attainder' by the Assem- 
bly, and the confiscation of his entire property within the pro- 
vince of Maryland. Still, he made no further attempt to 
enforce his claims or obtain satisfaction for his wrongs, 
but busied himself in the endeavor to retrieve his shattered 
fortunes, by taking up large tracts of land, and by other active 
enterprises, within the limits of Virginia. 

Relieved from the pressure of the controversy with Clai- 
borne, the Maryland colony began to gain ground; yet two 
causes still existed to embarrass the intercourse between the 
Proprietary and his people, and to engender distrust of the 
government and discussions among the colonists, namely, 
Lord Baltimore’s strict construction of his prerogative, as 
opposed to the people’s liberal interpretation of their rights, 
and the strong antagonism then existing between the Protes- 
tant and Catholic forms of faith. The former had as yet 
shown itself only in the attempts of both Proprietary and colo- 
nists to obtain the initiative in the enactment of laws ;—the 
latter engendered discussions between the Protestants and 
Catholics of the colony, that called forth from Goy. Calvert a 
proclamation, prohibiting “all further disputes on religious 
subjects, tending to the opening of faction and the distur- 
bance of the public peace.” ‘This, so far as I can ascertain, 
was the first paper, issuing from either Lord Baltimore or his 
brother, in which allusion was made to the opposing religious 
views of the colonists. There appear to have been some 


1 The act of attainder against Claiborne, was passed by the Maryland As- 
sembly, March 24th, 1637-8. It charged him with various acts of contempt, 
insolence, and rebellion; and upon these, together with his assumed instiga- 
tion of the acts of aggression committed by Lieut. Warren, of Kent island, on 
the 23d of April, 1635, (which had been adjudged to be piracy and murder,) 
was attainted of those crimes by the Assembly. The act declares, ‘* because 
he hath, since the committing of said crimes, fled and withdrawn himself from 
the province, whereby he cannot be attainted by any ordinary course of jus- 
tice,” the freemen, considering the premises and the necessity of exemplary jus- 
tice upon such notorious and insolent rebels and disturbers of the peace and 
safety of the inhabitants of this province, enact that he be attainted of the 
crimes specified, and forfeit to the Lord Proprietary all the lands and tene- 
ments held by him on the 23d of April, 1635, and all the goods and chattels, 
of which he may be possessed in the province, at the date of the act. 


26 


grounds for jealousy on the part of the Protestants ; for the 
Catholics were not always prudent enough to restrain the ex- 
pression of their dislike of Protestantism, while the Jesuit 
fathers were most indefatigable in their attempts to gain con- 
verts ; and, according to their own report,! were so far suc- 
cessful, as to have brought over to the Catholic faith nearly 
all those who arrived from England during the year 1638, 
besides four servants whom they bought in Virginia and five 
traders, not belonging to thecolony. At the same time, their 
efforts were unceasing to restore harmony between the dis- 
cordant spirits, whose controversies threatened to disturb the 
peace of the colony, while the Governor and his assistants 
rigidly enforced the regulations prohibiting religious disputes, 
even when over zealous Catholics were, in consequence of 
their disregard of his proclamation, made subject to fine and 
reproof.? 

The policy of Lord Baltimore, in regard to religious mat- 
ters in his colony, has, in some particulars at least, been mis- 
apprehended and therefore misstated. The assertion’ has 
long passed uncontradicted, that toleration was promised to 
the colonists in the first conditions of plantation; that the 
rights of conscience were recognized in a law passed by the 
first Assembly held in the colony ; and that the principal ofh- 
cers, from the year 1636 or 7, bound themselves by oath not 
to molest, on account of his religion, any one professing to 
believe in Jesus Christ. I can find no authority for any of 
these statements. Lord Baltimore’s first and earlier condi- 


1 Report of the Fathers for the year 1638. 

2 See trial of William Lewis, (July 3d, 1638,) for calling the author of a Pro- 
testant book a minister of the devil, and forbidding his Protestant servants to 
read in his house a Protestant book, authorised to be read by the state of Eng- 
land. Council Proceedings, from 1637 to 1644, and Bozman, vol. 2, p. 596. 

3 Petition to Gov. Sharpe, about the year 1751. 

4 This assertion comes from Chalmers ;—who says, ‘‘in the oath taken by 
the Governor and Council, between the years 1637 and 1657, there was the fol- 
lowing clause, &c. It might be said that the expression ‘ between the years 
1637 and 1657,” is indefinite and does not necessarily mean, from the year 
1637. But soclose a criticism is not necessary. Chalmers, though generally 
accurate, stated in this case more than was true. We have on record the oaths 
administered to the Governor and Council in 1639, which we know were in 


27 


tions of plantation! breathe not a word on the subject of reli- 
gion; no act recognizing the principle of toleration was 
passed in the first or in any following Assembly, until fifteen 
years after the first settlement, at which time a Protestant had 
been appointed Governor, and a majority of the Burgesses 
were of the same faith; and when, for the first time, a clause 
involving a promise not to molest any person professing to 
believe in Jesus Christ, and “particularly a Roman Catholic,” 
was inserted, by the direction of Lord Baltimore, in the 
official oath. 

It is true that no attempt was made by the Roman Catho- 
lics in Maryland, to establish their faith, to the exclusion of 
other sects, and that a practical toleration existed ; but this, as 
we know, was not deemed inconsistent with the most strenu- 
ous, and, to a considerable extent, successful efforts on the 
part of the Jesuit fathers, to convert the Protestants in the 
colony to their faith. Neither is the fact that the Protestants 
were allowed privilege of worship in Maryland, conclusive 
evidence to my mind that Lord Baltimore adopted that policy 
from an inward conviction of the sacredness of the rights of 
conscience ;—a principle which had not then penetrated the 
folds of the Catholic, any more than of the Protestant church. 
If, as is not improbable, the views of Cecilius Calvert co-in- 
cided with those of his father, as indicated in his published 
writings, he felt little sympathy for dissenters from the estab- 


use, as late at least as April, 1643; and these contain not a word of allusion to 
religious matters. Many writers have repeated Chalmers’ assertion, and laid 
great stress upon it, but the evidence of historical writers who depend upon 
each other, is not cumulative. The first link in the chain must be sound, 
or the whole will fall. 

Langford, a zealous friend of Lord Baltimore, says in his “ Refutation of 
Babylon’s Fall,”—« his Lordship appointed this oath to be taken by the afore- 
sayd officers, when he made Capt. Stone Governor, and Mr. Hatton Secretary, 
and others of his Councell there ; who being of different judgment in religion 
from himself, his Lordship fonekt it but reasonable and fit, that, as he did 
oblige them by oath not to sreicmie any there who professed to believe in Jesus 
Christ, so to express the Roman Catholics in particular, who were of his own 
judgment in matters of Religion.” 

1 See ‘* Conditions propounded by the Lord Baltimore, to such as shall goe 


or adventure into Maryland;” in the “ Relation of Maryland,” a pamphlet 
printed in London, September Sth, 1635. 


28 


lished church, and particularly for the Calvinists, whose 
tenets and efforts against church and state, Sir George 
Calvert denounced in unequivocal terms. 

But, admitting that a conscientious desire to recognize and 
practice upon the great principle of religious toleration was a 
leading motive with the second Lord Baltimore, it must still 
be conceded that he could not have been intolerant, however 
strongly disposed. His charter conferred on him, it is true, 
the patronage and advowson of churches in the colony, with 
license to erect places of worship ;—but these were to be “‘ded- 
icated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of 
the kingdom of England.” It provided also, (as did the char- 
ter of Virginia,) against any construction of its articles, by 
which ‘the holy service of God and the true christian religion,” 
(which, of course, in the mind of the grantor, could mean 
only the ritual and doctrines of the established church,) 
‘should suffer by change in any particular.”’? It was with 
these restrictions that Lord Baltimore accepted his charter; and 
with a distinct perception of the necessity of adopting a colo- 
nial policy, conformable, in all essential particulars, to the laws 
of the realm. ‘The only point that he strained, was, in grant- 
ing to his fellow Catholics a liberty of worship which was de- 
nied them by the English statutes; a privilege which, as a 
faithful son of the Church, he could not have withheld, even 
had he, on grounds of policy, been disposed; and to which 
Charles, at a time when the Catholic influence was strong 
and the vigilance of the law in reference to professors of that 
faith greatly relaxed in England, was not likely to object. 


1<«eTuE Answer To Tom Tretr-Trorn, &c.” was written by Sir George 
Calvert, about the year 1630, but not printed until ten years after his death, and 
then, most probably, by the agency of his son. The main object of its publi- 
cation was, to vindicate the memory and policy of James, to strengthen the 
position of Charles, and to rebuke the presumption of those Calvinistic politi- 
cians, who were dealing merciless blows at the weakness of the monarch, the 
corruptions of the church, and the oppressions of the state. 

See, in Appendix, No. I. several extracts, illustrative of the spirit manifested 
by the author towards the reforming sectarians. 

2 See, in Appendix, No. II. some remarks upon the erroneous translation of 
this passage from Article XXII. of the Charter, hitherto received, and sugges- 
tions as to its real meaning and intent. 


29 


The policy of the government of Maryland in this respect, 
as well as the spirit of the people, may be inferred from the 
legislation of an Assembly held at St. Mary’s, in February, 
1639. One of the first enactments guarantied to ‘ Holy 
church in the province all her rights and liberties ;” and this 
was followed by bills securing to the Proprietary his “ prero- 
gatives” and to the people their “ liberties,” according to the 
provisions of the Great Charter of England. 

While the Proprietary and the people of Maryland were 
thus establishing the colony on a basis, in which the rights 
of each should be distinctly recognized and fairly adjusted, 
the people of England, under the stimulus of political and 
religious excitement, were taking tapid strides in that career 
of revolution, which was to end the subversion of the 
established church and the overthrow of the monarchy. The 
king was finally compelled, after an intermission of more than 
eleven successive years, again to summon a Parliament, the 
members of which assembled, only to be overwhelmed with 
petitions against public grievances, to deprecate the increas- 
ing influence of the Roman Catholics, and to prepare the way 
for the impeachment and destruction of the hated Strafford 
and Laud. 

From this time forward, we must look for an increasing 
sympathy on the part of the colonists with the movement in 
the mother country, and the introduction of a new element, 
calculated greatly to modify their social and political relations, 
in the sympathy felt by different portions of the people, 
according to their education, prejudices, and religious faith, 
with the royal party on the one hand, or the party of the op- 
position on the other. This state of things, engendering a 
restive and factious spirit among the people, made the posi- 
tion of Governor Calvert one of great care and responsibility. 
A renewal of religious controversy added also to his anxieties. 
The Protestants complained of a prominent colonist,! a Cath- 
olic, for having obstructed them in their worship. Almost 
no the same day, in England, (March 26th, 1642,) Lord 
Baltimore was brought before the House of Lords on charges, 


1 Mr, Thomas Gerard. 


30 


the precise nature of which is not now known, but in conse- 
quence of which, he was placed under heavy bonds not to 
leave the kingdom.' 

It is possible that these charges had something to do with 
his Lordship’s management of his colony. Certain it is, 
that, from this time, he manifested great anxiety to avoid | 
every act which would expose him to the charge of contra- | 
vening, by his colonial policy, the established laws of the 
realm. His firmness in this particular, and his watchfulness 
in regard to compromising his proprietary rights, even placed 
him in opposition to the Jesuit missionaries in the colony, to 
whose aid he for a time refused to allow others to be sent, 
unless they would pledgeghemselves to make their practices 
adaitalle to the ih the English government, and 
leave him the full exercise of his prerogatives. 

The missionaries, who were zealously laboring among the 
natives as well as in the colony, had received as a gift a con- 
siderable tract from the chief of the Patuxents, and perhaps 
other similar donations. But, their holding these lands was 
in contravention of an old English statute, that no religious 
community should, by gift or otherwise, obtain or hold landed 
property, without the consent of the civil authorities; and of 
an established law of the province, that no person should 
receive lands therein of the Indians or others, without a grant 
from the Proprietary ;—for it was manifest if the missionaries 
were allowed to do this, it would not only expose him to ac- 
cusation in England, but established a precedent, that might 
ultimately undermine his proprietary right to dispose of the 
soil of his province. He therefore sent out a new commis- 
sion for the Governor, with new conditions of plantation, in 
which, in conformity to the English statutes, all fraternities, 
as well spiritual as temporal, were declared incapable of 
inheriting or holding lands within the province, unless by par- 
ticular license from his lordship; and an oath was prescribed 


1 It is worthy of note, that, while Lord Baltimore was defending himself 
before the Committee of the House of Lords in London, Claiborne received 
from the king, then at York, the appointment for life of Royal Treasurer of the 
colony of Virginia. 


31 


for every person taking up land, binding him not to accept, 
directly or indirectly, from Indians or other persons, lands or 
tenements, except for his lordship’s use. 

These documents were received in Maryland in the sum- 
mer of 1642; but the clauses in the conditions of plantation, 
just noted, gave great dissatisfaction to the missionaries, who 
claimed to be exempted from their operation, on the ground 
that the rights and privileges of ‘‘ Holy Church” had been 
guarantied by act of Assembly; and that the conditions 
could not be enforced without violating the papal decrees, as 
well as the established law of the province. Governor Calvert 
and Secretary Lewger held a conference with them on the 
subject; but they declared that to publish or administer the 
oath prescribed for applicants for Jand, or to enforce the 
clause against religious fraternities, would expose them to the 
severest penalties imposed by the church. 

Their remonstrance and the fear of committing a mortal 
sin or incurring excommunication, prevailed. The features in 
the conditions, which to the pious fathers appeared so excep- 
tionable, were for the present softened down. But Lord Bal- 
timore was determined to have his proprietary rights acknow- 
ledged by every inhabitant of the colony, and to keep the . 
civil, paramount to the ecclesiastical power. The Jesuits 
were soon after (Oct. 1642) desirous of sending two addi- 
tional laborers to strengthen their mission in Maryland; but 
Lord Baltimore positively refused his assent, unless, before 
assuming their functions, they would subscribe to conditions 
proposed by him. His nearest relatives interceded, but in 
vain; and the fathers were finally obliged to yield the point. 
The preamble was strongly and significantly expressed. 
‘Considering the dependence of the government of Mary- 
land on the state of England, unto which it must, (as near 
as may be,) be conformable, no ecclesiastic whatever in the 
province ought to expect, nor is Lord Baltimore nor any of 
his officers, (although they are Roman Catholics,) obliged in 
conscience to allow to said ecclesiastics any more or other 
privileges, exemptions or immunities for their persons, lands, 
or goods, than is allowed by his Majesty or his officers to like 


32 


persons in England.” ‘This was followed by clauses in which 
the obligation of the clergy not to take lands from the Indians 
was acknowledged, as also their liability, like other persons, 
to legal procedures, for the doing of right or for maintaining 
the prerogatives of the Proprietary; and all this, without entail- 
ing upon the authorities the imputation of sin, or the censure 
of the papal Bulla cena' for so doing. The two priests sailed 
for Maryland ; but those of the colony adhered to their former 
opinion, and even brought the new comers over to the same 
view; so that the adoption of the line of policy, in this par- 
ticular, so anxiously desired by his Lordship, was delayed 
for several years.? 

The disposition on the part of the colonists to accept lands 
from the Indians, as the missionaries had done, or to occupy 
tracts without a formal grant from his lordship, seems to have 
greatly troubled him and his brother at this period; and, 
with other causes of distrust and embarrassment, led Leon- 
ard Calvert to seek the personal advice of his brother in 


1 By the Bulla in cena Domini, the Pope asserts full supremacy over all 
powers and persons, temporal and ecclesiastical. It forbids all persons what- 
soever, directly or indirectly, to violate, depress, or restrain the ecclesiastical 
liberties or rights of the apostolic see and church of Rome, howsoever and 
whensoever obtained or to be obtained, under pain of excommunication ; and 
all who presume to oppose any of its provisions, are left under the displeasure 
of Almighty God. 

Lord Baltimore’s requirements were in violation of articles in the Bull, one 
of which forbade the subjection of ecclesiastical persons to the secular tribu- 
nals; and he must have either had a special exemption, or have been one of 
those, who doubted the power of the Pope to interfere with the administra- 
tion of civil law in remote nations. The Parliament of Paris did not hesitate to 
deny the binding force of this Bull upon France ; and I believe many of the 
Roman Catholics of England, did not consider it fully binding upon them, 

The authors of a tract entitled ‘* Virginia and Maryland,” published in 1655, 
in answer to one by Lord Baltimore, (probably the agents of Virginia in Eng- 
land) say, Lord Baltimore “first made Maryland a receptacle for Papists, 
Priests and Jesuits, in some extraordinary and zealous manner ; but hath since 
discontented them many times and many ways ; though intelligence with Letters, 
Bulls, §c. from the Pope and Rome be ordinary for his own interests.” Perhaps 
they referred to the controversy with the priests, which has been detailed. 

2 Reports from the Jesuit Fathers; Correspondence of Mrs. Anne Peaseley, 
(sister of Lord Baltimore,) Articles of Agreement, and other documents ;— 
for the opportunity of inspecting which, I am indebted to B. U. Campbell, Esq. 


33 


England, (April 1643.) The result of their conference, was 
a determination on the part of the Proprietary to, visit the 
colony in person early the following year ; a resolution which, 
however, he was unable to carry into effect. After a stay of 
nearly a year in England, Leonard Calvert returned, bringing 
with him, as an evidence of his own loyalty and a proof of 
the confidence of his sovereign, authority to treat with the 
Assembly of Virginia, for the passage of an act for levying 
customs in that colony, for the use of the king; of which 
revenues, Cecilius, by a special contract, (April 1644,) was 
to be Collector or Receiver. 

He found, on his return, the affairs of the colony in great 
confusion. Richard Ingle,! a captain of a ship engaged in 
trade with the colony, had, not long before his arrival, been 
proclaimed by the authorities a traitor to his majesty, his 
vessel seized, and an attempt made, though unsuccessful, to 
accomplish his arrest ;—the surrounding Indians had become 
hostile ;—the principal officers of the government were at 
variance ;—and a portion of the people factious, especially on 
Kent; the inhabitants of which shewed a leaning towards 
their old leader, Claiborne, who also manifested a disposition 
to revive his claim to that island. Governor Calvert brought 
with him a new commission of government, and new condi- 
tions of plantation ; in which was inserted a clause, requiring 
from all who should henceforward take up lands, an oath of 
fidelity to the Proprietary, recognizing his ‘absolute rights”’ 
and “royal jurisdiction,” instead of the oath of allegiance to 
the king, formerly exacted. This was, in substance, the oath 
which had been opposed by the missionaries, and the enforce- 
ment of which, in after times, was made the plea for resist- 
ance to the authorities, and the ground of a controversy, that 
finally ripened into civil war. 

Karly in February, 1645, the Governor called an Assembly; 
but hardly had the session been opened, when St. Mary’s 


1«The last ship that goes now thither, under the command of Ingle the 
master, will be ready to sail from Gravesend about a fortnight or three weeks 
hence.” Letler from Wm. Peaseley, Oct. 7th, 1642. 


34 


was surprised by a force under Capt. Ingle, acting probably 
under a commission from Parliament; and, before the people 
could recover from their panic, the members had dispersed, 
Calvert was a fugitive in Virginia, and the province in the 
hands of Ingle and his adherents. The invaders appear to 
have made a severe use of their success. The friends of 
Lord Baltimore were subjected to exactions, and some of 
them driven from the province ; the Jesuit fathers were seized 
and sent to England for trial; and an oath of submission 
was tendered, which may have been taken by the Protestants, 
but which only a single Catholic was even suspected of hav- 
ing subscribed, and he was afterwards vindicated by the 
Assembly from the suspicion. 

The odium of these and other excesses has long rested on 
Claiborne, whose name it is common to associate with that 
of Ingle in this invasion. But Claiborne can be shewn to 
have been in his place in the Virginia legislature when Ingle 
made his demonstration on St. Mary’s; and, during the time 
of the occupancy of Maryland by the invaders, to have been 
a regular attendant on the courts of that colony, where his 
official duties as Treasurer, required him to be present. ‘That 
he re-asserted his claim to Kent island, during this period, is 
true;! but this, I believe, was the extent of his connection 
with a movement, the credit or the odium of which properly 
belongs to Ingle alone.? 

A fugitive in Virginia,—Leonard Calvert endeavored to 


1In “ Plantagenet’s New Albion,” a pamphlet published in 1648, giving an 
account of the author’s wanderings, about the year 1645, in search of a conve- 
nient place for settlement, I find the following passage, which shows the reli- 
gious character of the movement in Maryland and the extent of Claiborne’s 
interference: ‘I went to Chicacoen, avoiding Maryland, for then it was in war 
both with the Sasquehannocks, and all the Eastern Bay Indians, and a civill 
war between some revolters, Prolestants, assisted by fifty plundered Virgin- 
ians, by whom M. Leonard Calvert, was taken prisoner and expelled; and 
the Isle of Kent taken from him also by Captain Clayborn of Virginia.” 

? A tradition is still current in the Claiborne family, that their progenitor once 
headed an expedition, during which he took Governor Calvert prisoner, carried 
him to Kent, gave him a severe flogging, and expelled him from the island. 
The story probably had its origin in the events of this period. 


35 


interest the Governor and Council in his behalf; but suc- 
ceeded only so far as to induce them to express the opinion 
that Captain Claiborne should ‘for the present surcease to 
intermeddle with the government of the isle of Kent,” and 
to propose a reference of the differences between him and 
the people of Maryland to their arbitration. At the same 
time, (Aug. 9th, 1645,) they informed him, that ‘‘in respect 
of their daily opposition by the Indians, they could send him 
no help.”! The Governor, seeing that what he had in view 
must be accomplished by his own efforts and resources, 
addressed himself to the work ; and by the close of the year 
1646, was at the head of a considerable force, with which he 
made a descent upon St. Mary’s, and again became master 
of the province. With this service, closed a life, the best 
years of which had been faithfully devoted to upholding the 
proprietary interests of his brother and laying the foundations 
of his colony. He died on the 9th of June, 1647. 

Thomas Greene, a member of the Council, became his suc- 
cessor; a man of activity and zeal, but unfortunately wanting 
in principle, and unsustained by the confidence and respect 
of the colonists. Notwithstanding his energy, had it not 
been for the spirit and tact of a lady, the province would 
have been a second time revolutionized. The soldiers, whom 
Governor Calvert had kept in arms since his return, and for 
whose payment he had pledged his own estate and that of 
his brother, were on the point of mutiny for want of pay; 
when Miss, or in the phrase of that period, Mrs. Margaret 
Brent, as the administratrix of Leonard Calvert’s estate and 
attorney for his Lordship, made use of the only currency at 
her command,—paid off the exasperated soldiery in cows, 
heifers, and calves, of the Proprietary’s private stock, and 
saved the province.? For her use of his cattle, Lord Balti- 


1 Virginia Records. 

* The name of this lady deserves also to be remembered, in these days of 
reform, as one who, not only proved herself equal to the most complicated 
legal transactions and the most trying emergencies of state, but if accounts are 
true, led the way in Maryland, in the assertion of the unrestricted rights of her 
sex. While the members of the Assembly were earnestly occupied with mea- 


36 


more also repaid her with reproaches, and even carried his 
complaints to the Assembly ; which, after some sharp corres- 
pondence, voted him an indemnity. This amusing passage 
between the Proprietary and the Assembly, may remind the 
classical student of the controversy in the Homeric Hymn to 
Mercury ; in which the roguish hero, charged by Apollo with 
being concerned in the abstraction of his oxen, asks with all 
the energy of injured innocence, 


* Apollo! why this harsh complaint of thine? 
Why com’st thou here to seek thy missing kine?” 


The termination of the two controversies was somewhat 
similar, only in point of liberal atonement in favor of the 
Maryland Assembly ; for, while Mercury, after much hard 
swearing, was at last induced to restore the stolen cattle, 
and, as some amends for his mischief, presented Apollo with 
the lyre, just invented by him, the Assembly agreed to 
replace his Lordship’s “ missing kine,” with ‘sixteen cows 
and a bull,”? which they gravely assure him is more, by a 
third, than has ever been found of his known stock in the 
colony, since its recovery. 


It would aid us in unwinding the tangled thread of our 
colonial history, could we precisely fix the position and poli- 
tical affinities of Lord Baltimore at this period. That he 
was, as late as April, 1644, an adherent of the king, we have 
seen; but, of his course for several subsequent years, we 
know but little. England was at this time in great commo- 
tion. Charles was under constraint on the isle of Wight; 


sures for preserving their own rights as freemen, they were startled by a 
demand openly preferred by Miss Brent, that shewed her greatly in advance of 
the times, in her appreciation of the rights of women, and involved preten- 
sions, which, though strange to the legislators of that day, are by no means 
unfamiliar to the ears of those of the present. This was no less than a claim 
to be allowed one vote in the House for herself, and one as his Lordship’s 
attorney ;—but the Governor ungallantly refused to put the question, and the 
injured lady, as her only means of retaliation, protested in form against the acts 
of that session, as invalid, unless her vote were received and recorded, as well 
as those of the male members. 


37 


the Independents and the Presbyterians were struggling for 
the mastery; the former were charged with meditating the 
destruction of the king; the latter were willing and anxious 
to have a sovereign, provided only he would adopt their sav- 
ing faith. Hence, arose a general movement in favor of 
Charles ;-—royalist insurrections in Kent, Wales, and other 
parts of the kingdom; the revolt of a portion of the fleet ; 
and an invasion from the Scotch, who marched, breathing 
complaints against the Independents for their ‘‘ impious act 
of toleration,” and swearing not to allow the introduction of 
Episcopacy into their kirk, yet claiming to vindicate the 
rights and protect the sacred person of the king. 

Cromwell, now the main reliance of the Independents, 
marches westward with a strong force, extinguishes in blood 
torch after torch of insurrection, sweeps rapidly by Bath, 
and throws all the weight of his iron ranks upon the hapless 
rebels of Wales. Fairfax dashes upon the centres of insur- 
rection in the east, and drives the insurgents in hopeless rout 
before him. In the north, affairs as yet look favorable for 
the king. 

In the city of Bath, in the midst of this din of war, we 
now find the Proprietary of Maryland, his attention fixed 
upon his little empire across the sea, which he is anxiously 
endeavoring, at the same time to strengthen and hold in sub- 
jection. His position and his prospects are, in several 
particulars, similar to those of his ill-fated sovereign. 

Charles contended for his royal prerogatives, the English 
Parliament and people for their ancient privileges and liber- 
ties ;—Lord Baltimore, in effect a king, strove to maintain his 
rights against an Assembly and a people, sturdy offshoots 
from the old English stock, who, in changing their domicile, 
had not lost their taste for the “strong meat of Saxon free- 
dom” that the mother country had given them to eat ;—and, 
retaining the national jealousy of attempts on their rights as 
freemen, kept close watch on the movements of Proprietary 
and Governors, and, often unjustly suspicious of both, 
expressed their discontent in most audible remonstrances, or 


by actual rebellion. The king struggled to recover a power 
6 


38 


which had been violently torn from him by fanatical secta- 
rians ;—the Proprietary had seen his authority overthrown, 
his rights denied, his representative driven from the province 
by adherents of the same rebellious party. The king, an 
Episcopalian, negotiated with the Catholics of Ireland for 
a force to assist him in recovering his throne, and, to obtain 
pecuniary aid, even offered to pledge his kingdoms as secu- 
rity ;—the Catholic brother of Lord Baltimore, a fugitive in 
Virginia, gathered forces from among the Episcopalians of 
that colony, for whose payment he pledged his own estate 
and his brother’s province; but, more fortunate than his 
sovereign, by their aid regained his place, and restored the 
province to its rightful proprietor. 

Between the policy of Charles and that of Lord Baltimore 
in regard to religion, no parallel can be drawn. Charles 
attempted, by rash and tyrannical measures, to proscribe dis- 
senters and compel conformity to the established church, an 
effort which was one of the principal causes of his over- 
throw ;—Lord Baltimore, a member of a proscribed and dis- 
franchised sect, had not the power, even had he felt the 
inclination, to make Catholicism the exclusive religion of his 
colony, or to shut out from it the followers of Protestantism. 
Governor Berkeley, the zealous Church of England man, 
could do that in Virginia, which might have cost the Catho- 
lic Proprietary his province; and, from the beginning, his 
good sense taught him, that, to save those of his own creed 
from oppression, even in Maryland, his true policy was, not 
to open the religious question; not to force the right of 
Roman Catholics to liberty of conscience upon public notice, 
but quietly to adopt such regulations in the province, as 
would keep down all religious discussions,! and leave every 


' Much stress has been laid by some writers on the case of William Lewis, 
a Catholic, who, in July, 1638, was charged by certain Protestant servants in 
the colony, with interrupting them while reading passages from Smith’s Ser- 
mons, in which the Pope was called Antichrist, and the Jesuits antichristian 
ministers, &c., and forbidding them to read the book, the author of which, he 
asserted, was himself an instrument of the devil. For this offence, as a trans- 
gression of a proclamation ‘made for the suppression of all further disputes 


39 


man to the enjoyment of his own opinions, provided he dic. 
not interfere with those of others. 

The religious question, which became so marked an ele- 
ment in the struggle in England, and in fact, the turning 
point in the later negotiations between Parliament and the 
king, did not, for some time, become prominent in Maryland. 
With the existing arrangements on this subject, all parties 
appeared satisfied ; and the Protestants, who, for fifteen years 
were with few exceptions Episcopalians, though occasionally 
carried away by excitement or the intrigues of interested per- 
sons to resist the government, were, up to the year 1650, 
faithful supporters of his Proprietary claims ;—some of the 
most unreserved recognitions of his rights having been made 
when they commanded a majority in the Assembly. 


A close survey of the tendency of political affairs and the 
state of religious feeling in England and in his province, now 
determined the Proprietary to change his colonial policy, and 
to transfer the government of Maryland from the hands of the 
Catholics, who had held it since the first settlement, to those 


tending to the opening of a faction in religion,” Lewis was promptly fined. 
The sentence is appealed to, as an evidence that toleration was the established 
law of the colony; but to my apprehension, a proclamation to suppress all 
religious discussions, avowedly to preserve the public peace, is one thing ;— 
the recognition by law or otherwise of the inalienable right of men to think 
for themselves on religious subjects, quite another. 

If the enforcement of Gov. Calvert’s proclamation proves tolerance, it will 
be easy to show that the Massachusetts authorities were tolerant in the same 
way and on the same principle. Hubbard, an old writer, says, ‘it was on 
that account (the disturbance of the civil peace,) that men suffered (in New 
England,) under authority, and not for their opinions ;—for if men that have 
drunk in any erroneous principles, would also make use of so much prudence 
as not to publish them in a tumultuous manner, and to the reproach of the 
worship established in the place where they live, they would not have occasion 
to complain of the severity of the civil laws.” 

The Sermons mentioned above, were by Henry Smith, a divine of the 
Church of England, but of the Puritanic party, and ‘“ by them esteemed the 
prime preacher of the nation.” The volume, “containing necessary and 
profitable doctrine, as well for the reformation of our lives as for the comfort 
of troubled consciences in distress,” was published in 1592. ‘The only copy 
I have ever seen, is in the valuable library of Bishop Whittingham, of this 
city. 


40 


of Protestants. Accordingly, in the summer of 1648, (June 
20th,) he set his seal to new conditions of plantation, in which 
he inserted the restrictive clause concerning religious frater- 
nities, that the fathers had successfully opposed, six years 
before. ‘These were followed by a commission (Aug. 1648) 
appointing to the government of Maryland, Capt. William 
Stone, a Protestant and a gentleman of standing, who had 
for some years been High Sheriff of Southampton county in 
Virginia, and who had recently contracted to introduce five 
hundred settlers, of English or Irish descent, into the pro- 
vince.!’ The commission to Governor Stone and the accom- 
panying papers are remarkable, as indicating the first steps 
of Lord Baltimore in a system of politic deference to the pre- 
vailing religious and political opinions of the times, an entire 
re-modeling of the laws, and a legislative recognition of the 
principles of toleration previously practised in the colony, and 


' The only item I have been able to obtain, relative to this gentleman’s per- 
sonal history, is so amusingly illustrative of the customs of that period, that I 
must be excused for introducing it. It appears that Capt. Stone, in connection 
with John Rosyer, had charge of the funeral of one William Burdett. Among 
the bills of expenses, was one brought by Dr. Richard Hall for wine drank dur- 
ing the ceremonies, to the value of 4320 pounds of tobacco, sent for and re- 
ceived by the managers. Payment having been declined, a suit was brought 
against the Sheriff and his friend; but, says the record, ‘‘ no proof appearing 
against Capt. Stone, but it appearing that the wine was sent for by Rosyer,” 
the former was exempted and the latter sentenced to pay the bill in full. 

Either wine was dear in Virginia at that time, or those who attended made a 
merry funeral of it. Ifthe physician who supplied the wine attended the pa- 
tient also, and charged as largely for his prescriptions as for his refreshments, 
his bill may also have been subjected to legal scrutiny. ‘The extortion of med- 
ical practitioners, had before that time become so oppressive in the province, 
that the Assembly had felt itself obliged to pass a law, compelling every physi- 
cian to swear, if required, to the cost of the drugs charged in his bill, and to 
submit to such reduction as the Court might prescribe. Nor were the medical 
faculty alone in bad odor; for, at the same period, attorneys were by law pro- 
hibited from practising in the province, on account of the litigious spirit their 
presence and profession were believed to engender ; while a standing enactment 
forbade clergymen to ‘‘ give themselves to excesse in drinkynge or riott, or to 
spend their time idly by day or night, playing at dice, cards, or any other un- 
lawful game.”’ If on these laws is to be based our estimate of the learned pro- 
fessions in Virginia at that period, the inhabitants of our sister state have reason 
to congratulate themselves on the wonderful change which two centuries have 
wrought in their practices and position. 


Al 


then upheld by the Independents alone in England, but not 
even by them extended to the Roman Catholics. 

The honor of originating this measure has long been the 
subject of controversy, and claimed alike by Catholics and 
Protestants ; by the former, on the ground that the instructions 
and laws which embodied that divine principle emanated from 
Lord Baltimore ;—by the latter, because the laws were enac- 
ted by a Protestant Assembly, over whom and whose constitu- 
ents they were to be enforced. My investigations into the 
origin of these laws, have convinced me that they originated 
primarily neither with Lord Baltimore nor the Assembly ; that 
their provisions sprang from no congenial principles at that 
day active in either the Catholic or Protestant divisions of the 
church ; that they were drawn up in deference to the progres- 
sive doctrines and increasing political strength of the Inde- 
pendents in England, as well as to meet the wants of the 
mixed population of the province ; and their adoption was an 
act prompted far less by feelings of religious benevolence than 
by civil necessity. If this view be correct, neither Catholics 
nor Protestants, as sects, at the present day, have any espe- 
cial ground for self-laudation on the subject, nor any reason 
for attempting to make capital, in opposition to each other, 
out of what was done by their predecessors in Maryland, two 
hundred years ago. 

The commission to Gov. Stone, besides surrounding him 
with restrictions in various particulars, that shew the Proprie- 
tary’s jealous guardianship of his royal prerogatives, con- 
tained a clause, to be found in no preceding commission,? 
binding him not to molest any persons professing to believe 
in Jesus Christ, and in particular any Roman Catholic, on ac- 
count of their religion, so long as they were neither unfaithful 
to his lordship nor conspired against the government; and to 


1 On this point, I am at issue with Chalmers and those who copy him, 
who assert that the Governors’ commissions, ‘between 1637 and 1657,” or 
from 1637 forward, contained a similar restriction. The matter has been 
referred to in a previous note. When I see the authority for such an assertion, 
I shall readily acknowledge my error, and concede the early date of the 
clause, which at present I entirely doubt. 


42 


make no distinctions in appointments to office on account of 
religious opinions. Similar restrictions were inserted in the 
oaths prescribed to the subordinate officers, the greater part 
of whom were now Protestants. With these papers was 
transmitted to the colony a body of sixteen laws, to which the 
people, through their Assembly, were required to give their 
assent, ‘‘ without alteration, increase or diminution,’ within 
twelve months, or they were to be of no effect. 

This body of laws, which in several respects modified the 
government, is believed by many to have been drawn up by 
Lord Baltimore himself. But his own words are, these ‘‘acts 
were proposed to us for the good and quiet settlement of our 
colony ; and, finding them very fit to be enacted as laws there, 
we do consent that Gov. Stone shall propose them to an 
Assembly.”? ‘They may have been recommended by Gov. 
Stone, as containing the principles on which he believed his 
government could be made stable, and the people be brought 
to live in quiet; or they may have been drawn by Thomas 
Hatton, the new Protestant Secretary, who was made the 
bearer of the commissions and laws to the province. To 
Lord Baltimore is due the credit of having recognized their 
general justice and their adaptation to the wants and religious 
condition of the colony; though, by coupling his expression 
of approval with the impolitic restriction, that the whole 
accompanying body of laws must be passed without the 
slightest alteration by the Assembly, he rendered their rejec- 
tion almost certain. Indeed, had not that body, as we shall 
see, after rejecting his code, proceeded to form one themselves 
in which they embodied the act concerning religion, that im- 
portant legal recognition of the rights of conscience, would 
have been still longer delayed. 

Early in April, 1649, Stone’s government was in operation, 
and an Assembly met at his call at St. Mary’s, to discuss the 
laws recently received, as well as other matters connected 
with the interests of the colony. ‘Two objections were raised 
to the code ;—first, that an act of recognition of Lord Balti- 
more’s proprietary rights contained in it, was oppressive and 
unjust ; and, secondly, that the royal jurisdiction and abso- 


43 


lute dominion claimed in an oath of fidelity prescribed in it, 
went beyond the provisions of the charter and ‘implied a 
slavish subjection of the people.”? Independently of these 
objections, the disgust of the members at having laws pre- 
sented for their adoption, which they were forbidden to mod- 
ify or amend, would have formed an insuperable obstacle to 
their passage, and his lordship’s code was laid aside. 
But while they rejected his lordship’s body of laws, they 
showed, as in their earlier legislation, no unwillingness to 
prepare one themselves ; and, professing a sincere desire to 
meet the views of the Proprietary, selected from his code the 
enactments which they deemed essential for the preservation 
of the civil and religious repose of the colony, to which they 
added others of their own. Among the former, was the cele- 
brated “ Act concerning Religion ;”’—the provisions of which 
were so luminously in contrast with the rigid conservatism of 
Virginia and the restrictive Puritanism of Massachusetts,+ 
that their light has remained as a beacon in the path of our 
colonial history, and the fact of their enactment has long been 
regarded as giving every true Marylander just ground for 
-pride in the liberal spirit manifested by his ancestors, two 
hundred years ago. 
The author of the act in question, whoever he may have 
been, understood that his aim must be, to harmonize the dis- 


1 An erroneous impression prevails, that the early code of Massachusetts was 
founded on the Mosaic law. I have shown in a previous note, that the people 
of that colony made their first move towards a regular code, early in 1635, soon 
after the Maryland colonists had prepared theirs for Lord Baltimore’s accep- 
tance. An abstract of laws, taken from the Mosaic code, was in consequence 
drawn up and presented to the General Court by the Rev. John Cotton, but 
not adopted,—though afterwards published in London in 1641, as “the laws of 
New England, as they are now established.”” Hence the error which has prevailed 
relative to the Massachusettscode. The laws, one hundred in number, actu-~ 
ally accepted, were drawn up by Nathaniel Ward, author of ‘the Simple Cobbler 
of Agawam,” and were adopted in December, 1641, under the title of “the 
Body of Liberties of the Massachusetts colony in New England.” This was 
the first code established there. In June, 1649, after laborious and protracted 
efforts to codify and improve the laws extant, the “ Liberties” were put to 
press ;—so that Maryland and Massachusetts commenced their labors of legis- 
lation and remodeled their code, nearly at the same time. I regret that I can- 
not devote some space to a comparison and contrast of their characteristics. 


44 


cordant religious elements of which the Maryland colony was 
composed. ‘The enactments proposed by him, therefore, form 
a compound, the elements of which are to be found in the 
acts or public professions of the Presbyterian, Catholic, and 
Independent sects of that day; and were collected and com- 
bined, with a view of conciliating and satisfying persons of 
each and all of these antagonistic opinions. Let us now 
endeavor to trace the sources whence the different postions of 
this remarkable statute were derived. 

In May, 1648, the Presbyterian party in Parliament, gather- 
ing courage after a period of absolute panic, called up and 
passed an ordinance against blasphemy and heresies, which, 
by the influence of the army had been kept back nine months; 
the stern severity of which has given rise to congratulations, 
that men capable of such enactments on religious subjects, 
did not succeed in obtaining supreme power. By this ordi- 
nance, any person denying the existence of God, or the per- 
sons of the Trinity, that Christ is the Son of God, and several 
similar dogmas, was, on complaint of two witnesses, to be 
brought to trial, and, if he would not abjure his errors, to suf- 
fer death,’ without benefit of clergy. 

The Maryland law, drawn up three months after, embodied 
similar specifications and the same terrible penalty;—only 
there was no opportunity given for recantation, and the goods 
and land of the offender were to be confiscated for the use of 
the Proprietary. In this respect, the Maryland law was even 
more severe than its model. : 

By the second clause, any person uttering reproachful 
words concerning the Virgin Mary or the Holy Apostles or 


1 By the Laws and Orders of the colony of Virginia, established May 24th, 
1610, impious or malicious speech against the Holy Trinity, or against the 
known articles of the christian faith, or any word or act tending to the derision 
or despite of God’s Holy Word, was made punishable with death. For using 
unlawful oaths, or taking the name of God in vain, the penalty of a first offence 
was, severe punishment ;—of a second, to have a bodkin thrust through the 
tongue ;—of a third, death. 

In the Massachusetts “ Liberties,” of 1649, worshipping any God but the 
Lord God,—witchcraft, and blaspheming the name of God, the Father, Son or 
Holy Ghost, were made capital offences. 


45 


Evangelists, was to suffer fine for the first offence, or if des- 
titute of goods, to be whipped;—for the second, a fine, or 
whipping and imprisonment ;—for the third, banishment and 
forfeiture of lands. This, as was afterwards declared by 
one! of Lord Baltimore’s friends, was inserted in deference 
to the views of the Roman Catholics in the province. 

By the third clause, any person calling another by any 
name or terms, in a reproachful manner, relating to matter of 
religion, was to suffer fine, whipping, or imprisonment, and 
ask forgiveness of the aggrieved party. Some propositions 
Springing from the Independents of that period, resemble 
this clause in form, though not precisely in the enumeration 
of sects. A similar clause was also introduced in one of the 
negotiations between the contending parties in Europe, 
during the Thirty Years’ War. This was evidently intended 
to meet the peculiar condition and mixed religious character 
of the population of Maryland. 

The fourth clause fixed penalties for profaning the Sabbath 
or Lord’s day, similar to those enforced in the Church of 
England, as well as among the various dissenting sects. 

The fifth and last clause of the enactment, commencing 
with the noble postulate, that ‘‘the enforcing of the con- 
science in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to be 
of dangerous consequence in those commonwealths where it 
hath been practiced,”’ enacts, “for the more quiet and peace- 
able government of the province and the better to preserve 
mutual love and unity among the inhabitants,” that no per- 
son, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall henceforth be 
molested, troubled, or discountenanced on account of his 
religion, nor the free exercise thereof, nor any way compelled 
to the belief or exercise of any other religion, against his 


1 John Langford’s “Refutation of Babylon’s Fall in Maryland,” published in 
London, 1655. The Act concerning Religion, he says, “was passed by a Gen- 
eral Assembly in Maryland in 1649, and assented to by the Lord Baltimore in 
1650 ; and the intent of it being to prevent any disgusts between those of differ- 
ent judgments in Religion there, it was thought necessary to insert that clause 
concerning the Virgin Mary, of whom some, otherwise, might perhaps speake 
reproachfully, to the offence of others.”—p. 32. 

7 


46 


consent ;—so he be not unfaithful to the Lord Proprietary, 
nor molest or conspire against the civil government. 

The counterpart of this portion of the law, is to be found 
in the “Agreement of the People,”’? a paper submitted by 
the officers of the English army to the consideration of their 
countrymen, in which they proposed to change the form of 
government. In this address, after disclaiming the idea of 
continuing in force ‘‘any laws or covenants whereby to com- 
pel men by penalties or otherwise to any thing about faith or 
worship, or of restraining any person from professing his 
faith or exercising his religion according to his conscience,” 
they demand that ‘all who profess faith in God by Jesus 
Christ, however differing in judgment from the doctrine, dis- 
cipline, and worship publicly held forth, shall not be restrained 
from but protected in the exercise of their faith and the prac- 
tice of their religion, so they abuse not this liberty to the 
civil injury of others or the disturbance of the public 
peace.”? Here we have the substance, and indeed almost 
the form of the closing enactment of the Maryland law. 

There was one sect, however, in whose favor the latter 
law made especial exception, to which the English document 
shewed no mercy. Here, the old national prejudice still 
asserted its power; and the very voice which proclaimed to 
Englishmen in tones of majestic harmony the doctrine of 
perfect liberty of faith to all believers in Jesus Christ, died 
away in discord, with the denial of all religious rights to the 
followers of the Pope. But Lord Baltimore was differently 
situated. A Roman Catholic himself, he lived in the midst 
of those who denied him the religious privileges they claimed 
for the meanest in their own communion; yet he was able to 
avail himself, in this period of religious excitement, of the 
doctrines of influential Protestant sects, to secure the quiet 
of his distant colony, and to protect by law, those of the 


1 The Independent clergy, before this period, had insisted on toleration, in 
their discussions in Assembly with the Presbyterian divines, who refused to 
countenance any but those of their own faith; and I think it probable that 
similar propositions in favor of all believers in Jesus Christ, were made by 
them, before the issuing of the “‘ Agreement of the people.” 


47 


inhabitants from oppression, who were of the same pro- 
scribed faith with himself. And this, I believe, in view of 
the fact that he was about to place the control of the colony 
in the hands of Protestants, was a strong motive for his sup- 
port of the act of religion transmitted by him from England 
in 1648, in which the principles proclaimed by different sects 
of the Protestants themselves were made available for the 
peace of the colony and the protection of the Roman Catho- 
lics in Maryland. 

The impression is somewhat prevalent, that to our state 
belongs the honor of the first legislative movement in favor 
of religious toleration on this continent; but such is not the 
fact. As early as 1645, an act in favor of the broadest tole- 
ration, more comprehensive even than that of Maryland, since 
it included the Jew and the Turk, was brought before the 
representatives of those who, twenty-five years before, had 
landed on Plymouth rock. ‘The sum of it,” says Winslow, 
the Governor, in a letter to Winthrop, then Governor of the 
Massachusetts, ‘‘ was, to allow and maintain full and free 
toleration to all men that would preserve the civil peace and 
submit unto government; and there was no limitation or 
exception against Turk, Jew, Papist, Arian, Socinian, Nico- 
laitan, Familist, or any other.” A majority of the deputies 
and three of the assistants were in favor of the act; but the 
Governor, fearing that, if carried into effect, it would “eat 
out the power of godliness,”’ refused to put the question, 
and stifled the law. ‘By this,” pathetically concludes the 
writer, ‘you may see that all the troubles of New England 
are not at the Massachusetts.”? ‘Thus, nothing but the hesi- 
tancy of a timid magistrate prevented the Puritan Pilgrims 
of Plymouth! from bearing away from the Roman Catholic 


1 We are too apt, in referring to the civil and religious traits of the early 
settlers of New England, to confound the different settlements with each 
other. Massachusetts and Plymouth were distinct in government and laws, 
and in some particulars, essentially different in feeling. “The Plymouth 
colonists, in religious matters, were more tolerant than their neighbors of 
Massachusetts. When Roger Williams had been driven from Massachusetts 
for his opinions, and was reduced to extreme indigence, Governor Winslow of 
the Plymouth colony, aided him by money and advice. ‘That great and 


48 


and Protestant Pilgrims of Maryland the honor of the second 
legislative recognition on this continent of the sacred rights 
of conscience. 

This spectacle of the wise, the powerful, and even the 
pious, rejecting the principle of toleration as tending to the 
subversion of religion and authority, was not to be seen 
alone in the colony of Plymouth. The noblest minds of that 
day, so far as intellectual reach and profound scholarship 
were concerned, shrunk from the word, as one, the mere ut- 
terance of which was sufficient to shake down the walls of 
Zion and undermine the foundations of civil government ; 
and it was left for those, in one sense humble and illiterate, 
but in a higher, truly noble and enlightened, to see by the 
flame of the stake, and amid trials and persecution, the true 
nature of that liberty wherewith Christ designed to make 
man free. 

Yet, what the Plymouth colony failed to do, through the 
weakness of her executive, was actually accomplished in the 
‘¢ Providence Plantations,” the asylum of Roger Williams. 
Two years before the session of the Maryland Assembly, of 
which I have spoken, the people of that settlement formally 
adopted a code, having the democratic principle for its basis, 
and containing this noble enactment: ‘‘ All men may walk as 
their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his 
God ;—and let the saints of the Most High walk in this 
colony without molestation, in the name of Jehovah, their 
God forever and ever.””! In the same spirit, Roger Williams, 
perhaps the author of that code, wrote in after years to the peo- 
ple of his beloved Providence, in the following terms: ‘ Sup- 
pose a ship goes to sea with many hundred souls on board, 
whose weal is common. ‘This is atrue picture of a common- 
wealth or human combination or Society. It hath fallen out 


pious soul, Mr. Winslow,’ said Williams, ‘kindly furnished me at Providence, 
and puta piece of gold into the hands of my wife for our supply.” Moore’s 
Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay, p. 118. 

1 Proceedings of the first General Assembly for the Incorporation of the 
Providence Plantations, and the code of Laws adopted by that Assembly in 
1647, p. 50. 


49 


sometimes, that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks 
may be embarked on board one ship. The liberty of con- 
science I plead for, turns on these hinges ;—that none of 
these Papists, Protestants, Jews or Turks be forced to come 
to the ship’s prayers or worship, if they have any.” 

Maryland, however, was the first American colony in which 
the principle of toleration was practically carried out, al- 
though its recognition by statute, dates fifteen years later 
than its actual introduction into the colony. This was co-in- 
cident with the first arrival of the expedition of settlement, 
composed of beth Catholic and Protestant colonists; and its 
origin, I have already stated to have been, in my opinion, not 
simply of a religious character, but an unavoidable conse- 
quence of the provisions of the charter, the peculiar position 
of the Proprietary, and the mixed religious opinions of the 
people; which, while the colony was controlled by a Roman 
Catholic, rendered any other policy than that of toleration, to 
the last degree impolitic, if not impossible. 

This opinion, however, is stated, not with a view of detract- 
ing from the honor justly due to Proprietary and people, in 
connection with the subject, but to place that honor on its 
proper foundation. The causes that lead men to a perception 
of truth, do not always lie within the compass of the particu- 
lar subject to which the principle recognized belongs. As, 
in science, some of its grandest discoveries have had their 
origin in circurnstances, not commonly recognized as included 
within its peculiar circle, so, in religion, some of its most 
sublime doctrines, and among them that of the inviolability of 
the human conscience, have been made clear to the compre- 
hension of men in earlier times, not so much by a direct per- 
ception of the essence of religious principle, as by that pres- 
sure from without, which made the helpless victims of intole- 
rance and persecution alive to the injustice with which they 
were treated, and ready to claim for themselves and their fel- 
low-men the privileges that were truly their right. As, also, 
in respect to scientific discoveries, the inductions are not the 
less valuable and true, that they run, not from the centre out- 
ward, but rather tend from the exterior to the interior, so, in 


50 


religion, and in the case of our ancestors of Maryland, they 
are not the less entitled to praise, because their views of duty 
in this particular, sprang rather from the influence of external 
circumstances, than from their clear perception of the true 
nature of toleration, arising from the nature of Christianity 
itself. It is sufficient that Proprietary and people, in the face 
of an almost universal intolerance in the sects to which they 
respectively belonged, were placed by God’s good providence 
in such relations, as made the practice of tolerance essential 
to their own quiet and the permanence of their social organi- 
zation ; and thus led the way, by the incorporation of the prin- 
ciple in the civil code of the colony, for a manifestation of its 
advantage and its justice, and for its adoption by more popu- 
lous and more powerful communities. For, say what we may, 
a large amount of the noble doing in the world is the result of 
noble example; and doctrines which might never or but 
slowly have made themselves felt in society, if left merely to 
argumentative inculcation, have borrowed a sublime force and 
an irresistible power, from being embodied in some great act, 
or presented to the admiration of mankind in a series of 
marked and heroic efforts. 


After passing other laws, besides that concerning religion, 
appropriate to the wants of the colony, the Assembly of 1649 
prepared to adjourn. Before doing so, the members drew up a 
letter to his Lordship, (April 21st, 1649,) vindicating their 
past course, explaining their reasons for laying aside the code 
recently proposed, and praying him to send no more such, 
as they were only calculated to fill their minds with jealousies 
and suspicions. Would he but send the heads of such laws 
as he wished passed, they would use their utmost endeavors 
to meet his views, but it was significantly intimated that 
oaths did not sit well upon the consciences of the people, and 
they desired to perform their duties to him and to one another, 
“with as little swearing as possible.” Forfeitures, it was 
suggested, would be more likely to keep men faithful, than 
oaths. 


51 


This letter found Lord Baltimore in London, watching the 
proceedings of those bold regicides, who, after beheading 
their king, had abolished monarchical institutions, and were 
now engaged in putting down all opposition, strengthening 
the foundations of their new government, and forwarding the 
fortunes of their friends. Lord Baltimore was a man of pen- 
etration and foresight; and he could not but see that the 
eradication of the monarchical principle from the supreme 
law, might endanger his own authority over the colony of 
Maryland. His position was evidently one which would 
require the most cautious and prudent management, to enable 
him to retain his charter and avoid a one-sided discussion of 
the principles upon which it was based, and the manner in 
which the government had been administered. 

With the letters of the Assembly, just mentioned, came 
also an application for permission to settle in Maryland, from 
a considerable number of persons, residents of Virginia, who, 
for their stubborn non-conformity and their sympathy with 
Parliament, had fallen under the ban of Sir William Berke- 
ley, and had been ordered to leave that province. With 
Lord Baltimore, their religious faith formed no objection to 
their admission to his colony; and it is quite probable he was 
not unwilling to adopt a course that would show his superi- 
ority to religious prejudices, and establish for himself some 
claim on the future forbearance of the party in power. These 
Virginia Independents asked “convenient portions of land, 
liberty of conscience, and privilege to hold courts within 
themselves,””? which Governor Stone had promised to concede, 
provided they would accept lands upon the existing condi- 
tions of plantation, take the usual oath of fidelity, and submit 
to appeals to the Provincial Court. The only objection made 
by the Independents, was, to the quantity of land assigned ; 
and his Lordship, in a most accommodating spirit, sent out 
new conditions of plantation, (July 2d, 1649,) changing the 


1 Thad prepareda sketch of the origin and growth of this congregation of 
non-conformists in Virginia, and the circumstances that induced them to take 
up their residence in Maryland ; but find myself obliged to reserve it for future 
use and publication. 


52 


grant to three thousand acres for every thirty persons, but 
requiring from each settler, as before, the oath of fidelity, as 
a condition precedent to taking possession of his land. With 
this, the Independeuts professed themselves satisfied ; and, 
under the guidance of Richard Bennett, an old and distin- 
guished resident of Virginia, prepared to leave their former 
homes. Within the year 1649, the greater part of the con- 
gregation, numbering over one hundred, had removed into 
Maryland. The most of them, selected a place of settlement 
on the banks of the Severn; and, as Roger Williams had, at 
the time of his banishment from Massachusetts, formed his 
little company into a church and declared that the Providence 
of God had led them to a place among the savages, where 
they might worship without molestation, a privilege denied 
them among christian men,—so they, organizing themselves 
into a church and taking up their abode in a region surround- 
ed by savage tribes, piously recognized that divine Provi- 
DENCE, which had guided them to a place of refuge, and 
bestowed on their new home the same name that had been 
given to the first settlement of Rhode Island. Here, “they 
sat down joyfully and cheerfully followed their vocations ;”— 
so that it might be appositely said of them and the Proprie- 
tary, in the words of Cowper, 


«« Ample was the boon 
He gave them, in its distribution fair 
And equal ; and he bade them dwell in peace. 
Peace was awhile their care; they plowed and sowed, 
And reaped their plenty without grudge or strife.” 


His Lordship’s new conditions of plantation, intended par- 
ticularly for these settlers, but addressed also ‘to all people 
in general,” were received in the province late in October, 
1649, and with them came the startling news of the execu- 
tion of Charles, the downfall of the monarchy, and the estab- 
lishment of acommonweath. Mr. Thomas Greene, who was 
then acting as Governor, during the temporary absence of 
Capt. Stone, regardless of the remonstrances of the Secre- 
tary and the opposition of the Council, and in defiance of an 


53 


act of Parliament, making it treason to recognize any person 
as king of England, proclaimed Charles II. the lawful suc- 
cessor of the decapitated monarch. That this act was not 
unacceptable to a large portion of the inhabitants, is quite 
probable; yet there was undoubtedly a strong party, and 
among them the recently arrived settlers at Providence,' 
whose sympathy with Parliament must have rendered such a 
recognition exceedingly unpalatable. 

In January of the following year, Governor Stone, having 
returned to the province, summoned an Assembly, to discuss 
his Lordship’s letter, received during his absence, and to 
consider the body of laws, which he had again transmitted, 
with an expression of his belief, that upon more deliberate 
and careful examination, the members would be better satis- 
fied with them; and, instead of its being necessary for him 
to urge their adoption, they would rather entreat him to favor 
them with his assent. 

Of this Assembly, which came together early in April, 
1650, Mr. James Cox, one of the two burgesses sent from 
Providence, was elected Speaker; which shews that their 
members were men of ability, and that the Parliamentary 
interest was strong in the House. The number of burgesses 
in the lower House was thirteeen; of whom eight? certainly 
were Protestants. 

The legislation of this session touches upon each of the 
three points which I have already enumerated, as forming the 
principal sources of difficulty with which the Proprietary had 
to contend from the commencement of his colony; and shews 
that, by his firmness, tact, and perseverance, he had appar- 
ently overcome the principal obstacles that had stood in the 
way of his complete success. The very first act of the 
Assembly was one, ‘prohibiting all compliance with Capt. 
William Claiborne, in opposition to his Lordship’s right and 
dominion.”” ‘That indefatigable opponent of the Proprietary, 


1 Now Annapolis. 

? We know this from their signatures as Protestants, affixed during the ses- 
sion to a declaration, testifying that they were unmolested in the exercise of 
their religion. 


8 


54 


encouraged by the changes that had taken place in England, 
and perhaps by the strength of the Protestants in Maryland, 
had strongly urged his claim to Kent island, in letters 
addressed to Governor Stone ;—whereupon this Assembly 
denounced the penalty of death and confiscation of estate 
upon any person who should countenance Capt. Claiborne in 
any attempt upon Kent island or any other part of the pro- 
vince. ‘This strong endorsement of the Proprietary’s right, 
in opposition to the claim of Claiborne, seemed to give the 
former all the assurance he could reasonably ask, upon a 
subject which had so long been a source of controversy and 
apprehension. 

The next act of the Assembly, was most probably induced 
by a strong appeal in his Lordship’s recent letter, to the jus- 
tice and loyalty of his people. The body of laws transmitted 
by him, was taken up and passed, not excepting the Act of 
Recognition of his absolute Lordship and royal powers, which 
had proved the principal objection to the code at the last ses- 
sion. By the passage of this act, another earnest wish of 
the Proprietary was gratified, in the public recognition of his 
prerogatives by the legislature of the province; yet it is to 
be observed that the Burgesses, even while conceding to him 
the long coveted acknowledgment, cautiously coupled it with 
a clause, sufficiently restrictive to protect all their rights as 
English subjects, and allowing a liberal latitude of construc- 
tion, in case a difference should arise between the Proprietary 
and them, in regard to the extent and bearing of their respec- 
tive rights. Thus, the legislators of Maryland, two hundred 
years ago, even while acknowledging the prerogatives of the 
Lord Proprietary, shewed themselves watchful guardians of 
the “liberties of the people.” 

An oath of fidelity was also prescribed by the Assembly, 
similar in form to that previously administered; yet differing 
in one or two points, the more worthy of note, that they 
made its spirit variant from that of the Act of Recognition, 
and that the alteration has been ascribed to the influence of 
the Independents of Providence. It will be remembered 
that the rejection of his Lordship’s code by the Assembly of 


55 


1649, was mainly grounded on the terms “ absolute,”? as 
applied to his proprietorship, and “‘ royal,’ as applied to his 
jurisdiction ; so that a jealousy on these points existed in the 
province, before the advent of the Independents. Lord Bal- 
timore combated, in his last letter, the objections made to 
these terms, and did not see fit to alter or expunge them. 
Neither did the present Assembly, in passing the Act of 
Recognition, though they inserted a clause, saving the liber- 
ties of the people ;—but when they came to the oath of fidel- 
ity, they omitted both of the objectionable terms, merely 
recognizing Lord Baltimore as Lord and Proprietary, and. 
promising to maintain such just and lawful rights as had 
been granted by the Charter, “not any ways understood to 
infringe or prejudice liberty of conscience in matters of reli- 
gion.” 

This latter clause is understood to have been added at the 
suggestion of the Burgesses from Providence ; whose con- 
stituents had begun to show some dissatisfaction with the 
terms of the oath, and were especially anxious to guard 
themselves against a repetition of the persecutions to which 
they had been exposed in Virginia, on account of their pecu- 
liar faith. Unfortunately, with all their experience of the 
evils of intolerance, and their possible willingness to concede 
the rights of conscience to the various Protestant sects, these 
people brought with them the old hatred of Popery, and 
looked with distrust upon the oath, because it required them 
to obey a government, that was bound to respect the reli- 
gious convictions of the Roman Catholics in the province. 
This, in the eyes of the more zealous, was no better than 
upholding Antichrist ; and, although they at first submitted, 
yet, as they gained strength and their friends in England 
consolidated their power, they more openly manifested their 
repugnance, and finally refused to take the oath, as it had 
been prescribed. Yet, for the present, all appeared content ; 
new immigrants came from Virginia, and the territory on 
which they had settled, was erected into a county, and called, 
after the lady of the Proprietary, ANNE ARUNDEL. 


56 


Another act of the Protestants of the Assembly and the 
province, during this session, shows their willingness to aid 
Lord Baltimore in meeting any objections that might be 
brought against him in England, on the score of the religious 
condition of his colony. A declaration was signed (April 
17th, 1650,) by Governor Stone, three members of the Coun- 
cil, eight members of the Assembly, and forty-three colonists, 
stating that by Act of Assembly and injunctions of his Lord- 
ship, they enjoyed full freedom in the exercise of their reli- 
gion, and were in no wise troubled on account of their Protes- 
tant opinions. This document, with copies of the laws 
passed, and a letter from the Assembly, was transmitted to 
his Lordship, and received by him about July. He at once 
prepared and despatched to Maryland an answer, (August 
6th, 1650,) in which he authorised the acceptance of the oath 
of fidelity, as modified at the recent session. 

And now, to human apprehension, the government of the 
province appeared firmly established, the rights of the Pro- 
prietary fully acknowledged, and all needful precautions taken 
to secure the peace of the colony, and to sustain him against 
insidious attacks upon his charter or his use of the powers 
conferred on him by it;—yet the elements of a storm were 
gathering, powerful enough to dash him from his proprietary 
seat, and ultimately to spread discord and confusion through 
the colony. 

His Lordship found himself suddenly assailed from two 
quarters. On the one hand, Charles II. professing his royal 
displeasure that Lord Baltimore ‘did visibly adhere to the 
rebels in England, and admitted all kinds of sectaries and ill 
affected persons into his plantation,” in effect, so far as was in 
his power, annulled the charter, and appointed Sir William 
Davenant, the poet, royal governor of Maryland ;:—on the 


1 Davenant actually started with an expedition from France, but, with his 
ship and colonists, was captured by a Parliament cruiser, in the English Chan- 
nel, and was imprisoned in Cowes Castle. His life was spared, through the 
intercession of two Aldermen of York, whom he had protected during the civil 
wars, aided by the friendly efforts of Milton. It is said, that, after the Restora- 
tion, Davenant was enabled to repay the debt of gratitude due to the great poet 
by interceding successfully with the authorities in his behalf. 


57 


other, Parliament was becoming awake to the necessity of 
extending its sway over the colonies; the more particularly 
as Barbadoes and Virginia had declared Charles II. king, 
and Maryland, through the wilfulness of her temporary Goy- 
ernor, had followed their example. In October following, 
therefore, an act was passed, asserting the right of Parlia- 
ment to control the colonies, and authorising the Council of 
State to send out a strong fleet to reduce the rebellious plan- 
tations, as they were called, to obedience. 

These proceedings not only caused Lord Baltimore great 
anxiety in England, but produced most unfavorable effects in 
his colony, as Rumor, with her usual exaggeration, represen- 
ted there that his charter had been taken from him or volun- 
tarily relinquished. The minds of the people were thus un- 
settled; and those especially who favored the cause of Parlia- 
ment, began to look with jealousy on the existing government 
and to doubt its right to control them. ‘The people of Anne 
Arundel went so far as to decline sending Burgesses to an 
Assembly called by Governor Stone for March, 1651; and 
Governor Berkeley, of Virginia, prepared to occupy Palmer’s 
island, formerly Claiborne’s advanced trading post, but for 
many years recognized as belonging to Maryland. 

Preparations for the reduction of Barbadoes and Virginia, 
went meanwhile steadily forwardin England. By the middle 
of May, Sir George Ayscough,’ with a strong fleet, was 
ready to sail against the former, but the expedition against 
the latter was still a subject of discussion in the Council of 
State. Lord Baltimore now experienced the evil conse- 
quences he had apprehended from the ill-timed recognition of 
Charles II. by Governor Greene; and found it necessary to 
bring all the influence of which he was master, to bear, to 
prevent the insertion of the name of his province with that of 
Virginia, in the instructions about to be issued for the guid- 
ance of those appointed to conduct the contemplated expedi- 
tion. For this purpose, he went before the committee, 
showed that Governor Stone was a Protestant and a Parlia- 
mentarian, disowned Greene’s act of recognition of Charles, 


1 By some writers spelt, Ayscue. 


58 


proved by the testimony of the Protestants themselves that 
they enjoyed their religious rights undisturbed, appealed to 
the recently enacted laws for evidence that the principle of 
toleration was publicly recognized in Maryland, claimed the 
credit of having given the Independents an asylum, when 
driven from Virginia, and substantiated his assertion that 
Maryland neither was nor had been in opposition to Parlia- 
ment, by the testimony of several Protestant merchants, who 
were engaged in trade with the colony and well acquainted 
with its condition. His efforts were successful ; and, he had 
finally the satisfaction of obtaining a decision from the com- 
mittee that Maryland ought not to be disturbed, and of see- 
ing the name of his province erased from the instructions, 

This was indeed an anxious period for Lord Baltimore. 
On the north of England, Charles, with his faithful Scots, 
maintained a desperate struggle against Cromwell; and from 
what had already transpired, the Proprietary had reason to 
believe that the success of the royal cause would be the sig- 
nal for his own ruin, or at least for the abrogation of his char- 
ter; while, in the action of Parliament and the discussions 
before the Committee, he was made aware that strong reli- 
gious and political, if not personal prejudices, were working 
against him. To crown his trials, came letters from Gover- 
nor Stone, apprising him of the reports in circulation in Mary- 
land, the growing disaffection of a portion of the people, and 
the spirit of aggression manifested by Virginia. ‘To this he 
replied, (Aug. 20th, 1651,) mildly rebuking the contumacy 
of the people of Anne Arundel, and advising the passage of a 
law for the punishment of persons, convicted of spreading 
false reports, ‘‘ tending to the disturbance of the minds of the 
people and of the public peace.” 

Two days after the signing of this letter, (Aug. 22nd,) 
Charles, as his ill-fated father had done just nine years before 
at Nottingham, raised his standard at Worcester, where he 
had arrived at the head of sixteen thousand men, principally 
Scotch ; and within a fortnight, Cromwell, pressing upon 
him with a superior force, overwhelmed and scattered his 
army, extinguished the last hopes of the royalists, and com- 


59 


pelled their master, in mean disguises and with extreme risks, 
to flee from the kingdom. The result of this battle fixed the 
expatriation of Charles for weary years, and in fact placed 
Cromwell in the chair of State. On the ninth day after the 
battle, “‘my Lord General,” soon to become ‘‘ my Lord Pro- 
tector,’ attended by an obsequious delegation from Parlia- 
ment, entered London amid the shouts of an admiring 
multitude, with a port in which conscious power so predomi- 
nated, that even Hugh Peters, the stern republican, could not 
but whisper to himself, ‘this man will yet be king of Eng- 
land.” 

A fortnight after Cromwell’s triumphant entry into London, 
(Sept. 26th, 1651,) the fleet destined for the reduction of 
Virginia, was ready for departure. The military force con- 
sisted of seven hundred and fifty men, embarked on board 
the ship John and the Guinea frigate, the former commanded 
by Capt. Robert Denis, the latter, by Capt. Edmund Curtis. 
There were also on board, one hundred and fifty Scotch 
prisoners, taken in the recent battle of Worcester, and sent 
over to be sold as servants. The chief command of the 
expedition was given to Capt. Denis, and with him were 
named as Commissioners, Capt. Thomas Stagg, then in Eng- 
land, and Richard Bennett and Capt. William Claiborne, 
residents of Virginia. Lord Baltimore had doubtless laid 
aside all apprehension in regard to Maryland, after twice 
obtaining the erasure of its name from the order for the expe- 
dition; but if he was made aware who were nominated as 
Commissioners from Virginia, or of the form which the 
instructions finally assumed, he could not have seen the 
departure of the fleet, without some anxiety. 

The instructions direct any two or more of the Commis- 
sioners, to use their best endeavors for the reduction of all the 
plantations within the Bay of Chesopiack to a due obedience 
to Parliament; to see the acts against kingship and a House 
of Lords, for abolishing the book of Common Prayer, and 
for subscribing the engagement, to be received and published; 
to administer to the people an oath to be true to the Com- 
monwealth of England; and to cause all writs and processes 


60 


to be issued in the name of the Keepers of the Liberty of 
England. In case of the death or absence of Capt. Denis, 
Capt. Curtis was empowered to act in his stead, and to take 
command of the expedition. 

_ On the voyage out, the frigate John, in which were Cap- 
tains Denis and Stagg, was lost, and with them, the original 
commission; but Capt. Curtis had been provided with a 
copy, and on him devolved the command. Weakened by 
the loss of the principal ship and her commander, and with 
sickness prevailing on board, Capt. Curtis touched at Barba- 
does, where he found Sir George Ayscough held in check by 
the resolute inhabitants. The reduction of the island had 
proved a more difficult undertaking than had been antici- 
pated, for, though settled but a few years before Maryland 
and under a similar charter, it had vastly outstripped the lat- 
ter in increase of population and wealth, and had mustered a 
truly formidable body to repel the invasion. The show of 
additional force presented by the arrival of the Virginia expe- 
dition, enabled Sir George to push his attack and compel the 
Barbadians to surrender.!' After a stay of seven days, Capt. 
Curtis sailed for Virginia, and arrived before James City early 
in March, 1652. 

Governor Berkeley had made preparations for resistance, 
but, finding the means of defence at his command insufficient 
to withstand even the small force that appeared against him, 
concluded with the Commissioners an arrangement, (March 


In a letter in the State Paper Office in London, dated Feb. 16th, 1651-2, 
from Col. (afterwards Sir Thomas) Modiford, of the island of Barbadoes, to 
Bradshaw, then President of the Council of State, the following suggestions 
occur, which show that the spirit which roused the colonies to armed resis- 
tance to British tyranny in 1776, was alive and active in the West India Islands 
a century and a quarter before, ‘The great difficulty is, how we shall have a 
representative with you in your government and our parliament. To demand 
to have Burgesses with yours to sit and vote in matters concerning England, 
may seem immoderate ;—but, to desire that two representatives be chosen by 
this island to advise and consent to*matters that concern this place, I presume 
may be both just and necessary; for, if laws be imposed upon us without our 
personal or implied consent, we cannot be accounted better than slaves, which, 
as all Englishmen abhorre tosee, so I am confident you detest to have them. 
This is so clear, that I shall not need to enforce it with argument.” 


61 


12th, 1652,) by which the most liberal terms were conceded 
to Governor, Council, Assembly, and people. 

Having accomplished the reduction of Virginia, the Com- 
missioners proceeded to discharge the additional duty imposed 
on them by the clause in their instructions, which directed 
them to reduce ‘all the plantations within the Bay.” It 
has been the custom for most writers upon our early history, 
to father upon Claiborne all sins of opposition to Lord Balti- 
more, committed in the colony or elsewhere at this period ; 
and accordingly, the change in the form of the instructions, 
by which Maryland was virtually included, and all the pro- 
ceedings consequent upon them, have been attributed to his 
personal interference and his hostility to Lord Baltimore. 
But the fact is, neither he nor Bennett appear to have had 
any cognizance of the proceedings in England, preparatory 
to the expedition; nor is it certain that they were even 
aware of their appointment as Commissioners, until the arri- 
val of Capt. Curtis, with whom they acted. Captains Denis 
and Stage had been present at the debates of the Committee, 
and were aware that, at Lord Baltimore’s remonstrance, the 
name of Maryland had been stricken out; but they had been 
Jost on the voyage, and the remaining Commissioners had 
only the letter of the instructions for their guidance. By 
whom the phrase ‘all the plantations within the Chesapeake 
Bay,”’ was inserted, is not known. It was certainly sufficient 
to justify the Commissioners in requiring the formal submis- 
sion of the inhabitants of Maryland. ‘There is no evidence 
that Claiborne had any agency in the matter, beyond that of 
simple obedience to the commands of that power, which was 
then recognized as supreme in England. 

On the arrival of the frigate at St. Mary’s, negotiations 
were opened with Governor Stone. ‘The commissioners de- 
clared that they asked only a compliance with the requisitions 
of Parliament, as expressed in their instructions; and pro- 
posed that Lord Baltimore’s officers ‘should retain their 
places, conforming to the laws of the commonwealth in point 
of government only, and without any infringement of his 
Lordship’s just rights.” Governor Stone and Council de- 

9 


62 


clared themselves willing to recognize Parliament as the 
supreme power and to take the engagement; but declined to 
issue writs in the name of the Keepers of the Liberty of 
England, on the ground that they had been assured the 
Council of State did not intend to deprive Lord Baltimore 
of his proprietary rights or to make any changes in his pro- 
vince ; and furthermore represented, that, as the king’s name 
had never been used in writs in Maryland, but only the Lord 
Proprietary’s, there could be no reason for enforcing that 
clause in his colony, which was applicable only in England. 
or Virginia. But the Commissioners, on their part, professed 
to have no power to vary from the terms of their instructions, 
and gave the authorities further time to deliberate. ‘They 
persisted in their refusal. A proclamation was thereupon 
issued, appointing a Council of Government to supersede 
Governor Stone and administer the engagement to the people, 
and requiring that Lord Baltimore’s commissions should be 
surrendered, and the records of the province placed in the 
hands of the new Council. 


The 29th of March, 1652, is known in English annals as 
‘black Monday ;”’ a day remarkable for a total solar eclipse, 
the deep darkness of which made many a strong heart quake 
with apprehension, and Jed many enthusiastic spirits, who 
had been brought by the great political and religious changes 
going on around them to look for a sign from Heaven to believe 
that the end of the world had come. If Lord Baltimore was 
a believerin omens, he might have felt that so solemn an obscu- 
ration at mid-day was not without its portents for him; for on 
that day the instrument was signed, which deposed the ofhi- 
cers appointed by him in Maryland, and virtually severed him 
from all connection with the administration of affairs in his 
province. It is true, the Commissioners professed to estab- 
lish the new government only “until further order could be 
taken therein, and until the Council of State’s further pleasure 
could be known ;”—but, as affairs then stood in England, it 
was probable that the action of the Commissioners would be 
sustained ; and that only by means of protracted controversy 


63 


and earnest efforts, could he hope to obtain a reversal of their 
decision and a recognition of his proprietary rights. This, 
in the sequel, proved to be the fact. 

Having thus established in the colony the power of Parlia- 
ment instead of that of the Proprietary, the Commissioners 
departed from St. Mary’s. Capt. Curtis, in the Guinea fri- 
gate, returned to England, bearing to the Council of State a 
report of the manner in which he and his coadjutors had 
effected the reduction of the plantations within the Chesa- 
peake Bay, and to Lord Baltimore information of the unfa- 
vorable position in which their action in Maryland had placed 
him and his officers ;—while Bennett and Claiborne repaired 
to James City, to meet an Assembly before summoned by 
them ; by which body, on the 26th of April, the former was 
elected Governor, and the latter, Secretary of State of that 
colony, ‘with all the just powers and authorities belonging 
to those places respectively.” 


Here, close we for the present our view of Maryland, “two 
hundred years ago.’”’ We leave Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, 
after all his sacrifices and efforts, deprived of authority over 
his province, and placed in the position of a suppliant to the 
supreme authorities in England, for the preservation of his 
charter and the restoration of his proprietary powers; while, 
by one of those vicissitudes so often occurring in social and 
political revolutions, William Claiborne, his rival claimant 
for the honor of the first settlement of the soil of Maryland, 
charged by the Council of State with an official trust of high 
responsibility, and raised to the second post in the govern- 
ment of Virginia, holds the control of the province from which 
he had been driven by violence, and the legislature of which, 
fourteen years before, had branded him as constructively a 
pirate and a murderer, attainted his name, and confiscated his 
estate. The government is in the hands of persons, selected 
by the Commissioners for their devotion to Parliament, and 
pledged to make their administration conform to the laws 


* Corresponding to the 6th of May, New Style. 


64 


established in England ; the effect of which, (since the laws 
adopted by Parliament still deny to Roman Catholics liberty 
of conscience,) is, to suspend for the time the tolerant enact- 
ments of the province,} at least so far as the members of that 
sect are concerned; the population, scattered and weak, and 
occupying principally St. Mary’s, Patuxent, Providence, and 
Kent, generally submit without hesitation; yet germs of dis- 
content exist, which, if not checked, may before long develope 
themselves in controversy and violence. The narrative of 
varied and stirring incident belonging to the subsequent 
period, and which resulted in the restoration of the province 
to its rightful owner, must be left for another occasion. 

A few words more, and I have done. After the lapse of 
just two centuries, we, the inhabitants of the city bearing the 
name of the actual founder of our State, citizens of that 
Maryland, the growth and condition of which, in those long 
lapsed periods, we have been endeavoring to scrutinize, stand 
up and question that dim and distant Past, and compare its 
response with that of the many-voiced Present, that we may 
anticipate our now unknown Future. ‘‘ CRESCITE ET MULTI- 
PLICAMINI,”’ was and is the motto of our social and political 
organization ; and in our history for two centuries it has been 
well obeyed. ‘Two hundred years ago, the population of 
Maryland numbered less than five thousand souls,—now, we 
can count more than five hundred thousand ;—then, spread 
over four thinly settled and indefinitely extended counties,— 
now, covering the ample territory of the state ;—then, 
exposed to the inroads of the savage and disturbed by civil 
dissensions,—now, secure from any outward attack and 
bound together by common interests and a common heritage 


1 It is true, that the Governor and Council, even after the province was 
restored to Lord Baltimore, issued orders, July 23d, 1659, directing Justices of 
the Peace to seize any Quakers that might come into their districts, and to 
whip them from constable to constable, until they should reach the bounds of 
the province. This severe treatment, however, was not on account of the reli- 
gious opinions advanced by the Quakers, but because they were wanting in the 
respect considered due to the civil magistrates, and, by their own refusal to take 
the oath of submission to the re-instated authorities, required of all the inhabi- 
tants, were regarded as setting an evil and rebellious example to the factious 
and ill-disposed among the people. 


65 


of civil and religious right;—then, scattered and disjoined by 
the remoteness of settlements and the difficulty of tracing 
one’s way through the pathless and Indian-haunted ‘forest, — 
now, compacted with populous cities, thriving towns, and 
growing villages, and united by those iron bands which form 
one of the inventive wonders as well as one of the grand 
commercial and industrial features of the age;—then, a 
feeble, isolated community, struggling with internal difficul- 
ties and with the rivalry of an adjacent colony ;—now, in 
the heart of a mighty republic, itself a sovereign state, sur- 
rounded by states, powerful and sympathizing, and linked to 
all the confederated states of our glorious Union by a com- 
mon tie. How can her children look back, and not bless the 
philanthropy, wisdom, and energy of her founder; honor the 
sturdy spirit of those ancestors, who, by their firm adherence 
to their liberties as English subjects, paved the way fora 
recognition of their broader rights as American freemen ; 
and magnify the goodness of that Divine Providence, which, 
from the small seed planted on this Atlantic coast, two hun- 
dred years ago, has raised a tree of liberty, whose branches 
extend from the rivers to the sea, and whose leaves shall yet 
be for the healing of the nations! 

Let us, then, not only as citizens of Maryland, but as 
members of this great Union, accept as oracular periods and 
bind upon our hearts, these words of warning and advice, 
addressed by Cecilius Calvert to his people, during the colo- 
nial difficulties I have attempted to describe. ‘‘ We now 
hope,” are his impressive words, ‘that the inhabitants there 
will unite themselves in Affection and Fidellity ; and avoide 
all factions and divisions among themselves, as also such 
cavilling Persons and Councells as shall, under what specious 
pretence soever, excite or tend to the Division of the people 
and their unanimous and cheerful obedience to the Civill Goy- 
ernment there established: That, as we are all members of 
one Body-Politique, we may have also one minde in all Civill 
and Temporall matters concerning that place ;—which is the 
most hopefull way of drawing down God’s blessing upon our 
Endeavors, who loveth Unity, and therefore commandeth us 


66 


to love one another. Christian Religion directeth us soe to 
doe, for the accomplishment of eternall happiness; and 
human Policy also adviseth it;—it being a most certaine 
and true Maxime, which tells us, ‘ Concorpia, res parve 
crescunt, Discorpra maxime dilabuntur :’ By Union, a small 
collony may growe into a great and renouned nation ; where- 
as, by experience it is found, that by discord and pisunion, 
great and glorious kingdoms and commonwealths decline and 
come to nothing.” 


With the lesson from the Past, which has been read to us, 
impressed upon our minds,—with these words from our 
honored Founder sounding in our ears,—with the teeming 
and hopeful Present under our feet, and the immeasurable 
Future opening before us,—who of us will hesitate to say, in 
all sincerity and with solemn earnestness,—“ Gop SAVE THE 
COMMONWEALTH oF Mary.anp !”?—‘‘ GoD PRESERVE THE 
Union oF THESE American Unirep States!” 


i 2 EN ING ates 


Tun full title of the tract, alluded to in the note, is as follows: “ The 
Answer to Tom Tell-Troth, the Practice of Princes, and the Lamentations 
of the Kirke : Written by The Lord Baltimore, late Secretary of State.— 
London, printed 1642.” The following selections are made to show the 
tone of the author’s mind on political as well as religious subjects. It 
must have been presented to the king about the year 1631; and it is pos- 
sible that the loyalty displayed by Lord Baltimore in it, and his zeal to 
rebuke the king’s opponents, religious as well as civil, may have inclined 
Charles to look favorably on his application for the charter of Maryland, 
which was granted soon after. 

He begins with the following humble address to the king : 


«« Mosr Gracious Prince, 

“<T know well what Reverence subjects owe to their Sovereigne, and 
am not ignorant of the puissance and majesty of a king of Great Brittaine; 
believe, I should not presume to write to so great a Monarch, if the Loy- 
alty of a subject, the honour of your vertues and some particular obliga- 
tions of my own, did not command me to neglect all other respects, and 
prefer your safety, honour, and bonum publicum, before any dangers or 
blame, I foresee [1] may incurre, and the rather because I speake in your 
owne eare only, without publishing or imparting to others, that which I 
delivered to your Majesty.””—p. 1. 

«TI have seene divers discourses out of England of the necessity to 
maintaine the ancient authority of Parliaments, how to assure Religion 
from oppression and alteration, and how to reforme the government both 
in church and commonwealth,—audacious arguments, and as insolently 
handled.—p. 2. 

«“T meane not to trouble your Highnesse with pedlor’s stuffe, and so 
stale wares as Vow Populi and Voliva Anglie ; but to inform you of some 
books (amongst many others) J. 7. Troth, The Practice of Princes, and 
the Lamentation of the Kirke ; which are the works of such Boutefeus, as 
are able to set the whole State on fire, imbroyle the Realme and aliene the 
hearts of the people from their Prince ; for these Maskers, under the Vi- 


68 


zards of Religion, seeke to undermine Loyalty, and either to engage you 
abroad in forraigne wars, or indanger your person at home in Civill; 
And yet I write not to confute these learned scriblers (more worthy to be 
contemned then answered) but to advertise your Highnesse of them, that 
by an obsta principiis, you may upon such smoake prepare all things 
needfull to quench such a fire, when it shall flame, and first breake out, 
which it may doe when you least looke for it; For by nature these spirits 
are fiery hot spurs, and fitter for any thing, then that they most professe, 
Piety and Patience.’’—p. 3. 

«And that they may plainely appeare in their own likenesse, your 
Highnesse may be pleased to mark and consider how saweily and pre- 
sumptously they contemne Monarches, scorne and disgrace them.””—p. 3. 

«* And, which argueth a spirit of frenzy, he (Tom Tell-Troth) spareth 
no King ;—for, of King James himself he delivereth such a character, as 
is both disloyall and most intollerable. And first, touching his mainte- 
nance of Religion, he taxeth him most scandalously, that he is only head 
of the church dormant, there are so many corruptions in it; that he hath 
more pulled downe the church with his proceedings than raised it up by 
his writings ; and whereas he calleth himselfe ‘defender of the Faith,” 
his faithful subjects, saith he, have just cause to question it; for the Pa- 
pists were never better defended, as appeareth by the king’s private 
instructions to judges and prohibition of Pursevants.”’—p. 4. 

«But above all other scandalous defamations, the description they 
make of a Protestant King, is most transcendent and traiterous. Let him, 
(saith he) excell in mischiefe, let him act Nero, Phalaris, &c. he shall not 
need to feare, nor weare a private coate, for he may have Lords temporall 
for his Eunuches, spiritual for his mutes, and whom he will for his Incu- 
bus and kisse his minions without shame.”’ 

“Behold a Calvinist in puris naturalibus ;—perfectly factious and under 
the cloake of zeale, carnifex regum. Peruse Mariana and all the works of 
the Jesuites, look as curiously into their acts as they were examined at 
Paris, and you shall not find such paradoxes of mischiefe and such pro- 
phane calumniations of Princes which may parallel and match these, yet 
T can overmatch or equall them; for they murmure as much at your 
Majesty’s own proceedings, neither doth your Monarchie or mild temper 
exempt you from their tongue-shot, and the poison of asps in their lips.’” 
pp- 6—7. 

«Thus, they currishly barke against Kings and Councells, and spit 
upon the Crown like Friends of Democracies, of confusion and irregulari- 
tie,”’—** They intend, first, to reforme the State, and to suppresse Episco- 
pall jurisdiction, and casheere so many places of Baronies in the Upper 
House; and yet those men pretend to be friends and patrons of Parlia- 
ments and order.”’—p. 9. 

« And surely the Bishops were blinded, if they should expect any favor 
of good allowance, if God should so punish this realm, that your Majesty 


69 


should die without Issue, (which God forbid,) fort the successor these men 
desire will deale with them, as he did with the Lutherans at Prague.”— 
» LO: 

“We are not now troubled so much with mar-Prelats as with mar- 
Kings (which is an accident unseparable from Calvanisme) which never 
got sure footing in any country, but desolation followed. Your Majes- 
tie may be pleased to call to mynd, and set before your eyes, how misera- 
bly your Grandfather was made away of the disciples of Knox, and how 
your Grandmother, who had as good right and footing in Scotland, as 
you have in England, was deposed by the same spirits. Remember also 
in what danger King Francis the second of France did stand by the con- 
spiracie of Amboys, and his brother Charles at Meaux by those Calvin- 
ists, Preecones turbarum.””—pp. 14, 15. 

é«] will conclude all with the reasons of these calamities and tempests 
raised by the Consistorians, which Sebastian Castalio giveth, l. de pra- 
destinat. (a man once neatly allyed to Calvin in divers opinions,) who 
maketh a difference between the true God and the God of Calvin. He 
teacheth us that Calvin’s God ingendereth children without mercie, proud, 
insolent, and bloudie, and that it cannot be otherwise he sheweth causes. 
For, that Calvin’s God is the Author of Sinne, (not by permission only, 
but efficaciter,) and he predestinated the greatest part of the world not 
only to damnation,—but also to the cause of damnation, and suggesteth 
fo men wicked affections: Wherefore if it be true that of malus corvus, 
malum corvum,—of evill causes, evill effects, of an evill spirit, will evill 
motions proceed. I cannot marvayle of the tumults of Bohemia, of the 
many battayles and rebellions in France, and the horrible treasons im 
Scotland, and I may well doubt that the like, (which hath been in other 
places,) may fall out in England, knowing by whose doctrines they were 
all guided and bred, by what furies they were inspired, and what God 
they served and adored, who was the Author of Sinne, the badge of Cal- 
vinisme.””—p. 16. 

The author goes on to prove, by a long and labored argument, that 
Ferdinand was legally elected king of Bohemia, while the choice of the 
Elector Palatine was irregular and rebellious; and on this plea dissuades 
the king from following the warlike counsels of the Calvinistic party ; 
since “no war can be justifiable but that which is begun upon just and 
urgent occasions, wherein justice, prudence, honor, and safety shall bear 
the standard of England.” 

The freedom with which Lord Baltimore alluded, even in addressing 
the king, to the oppressed condition of the Catholics in England, is shewn 
in the following home-thrust which he gives his opponents: 

«But to make a closer fight, the argument which the Palatine useth 
for the defence of the Bohemians, will appeare in the right shape of vani- 


1 The successor alluded to'was the Elector Palatine and titular King of Bohemia, a zeal- 
ous Protestant, who married Elizabeth, the daughter of James. 


10 


70 


tie, if I may weigh it with English weights, and change the name; and 
if I may (to make the Judges the better to apprehend,) thus brieflie draw 
it into forme. 

“The poore afflicted Catholiques of England have their srievances 
dayly multiplied, their estates spoiled, their persons disgraced, &c. There- 
fore, being driven to such extremities, they may justlie and lawfullie take 
armes in defence of their Religion and Libertie ;—how will the Judges 
like this reason? Surelie, preferr me to Newgate worthilie: and yet this 
is the substance of their Argument. The antecedent of this Argument 
is comprehended in these words :—‘ Aucta in immensum Religionis gra- 
vamina.’ Now, if this reason be good to move compassion to the Bohe- 
mians, so it may for the English. If you object, that the Lawes of 
England punish Catholiques, and abolish the exercise of their Religion ; 
so likewise doth the Law of the Empire of Bohemia condemne the 
Calvinists. If you say, for the peace of the Realme, the King cannot 
tolerate Catholiques, experience sheweth the like for the Calvinists, whom 
the empire accuseth of heresie, schisme, and innovation, which last, can- 
not justlie be imputed to the Catholiques.”’ 

« And, touching the consequent, it is the Palatine’s own conclusion, 
viz: Quis miratur, si quid in desperatis morbis fieri solet, ad extrema quo- 
que remedia descenderant? So, if the Catholiques should follow the 
Palsgrave’s opinion and advice in desperatis morhis, that is, in violent per- 
secution, they may lawfully take Armes, and defend themselves ;—but 
they are otherwise Catechized, and better instructed in the school of true 
patience and humilitie, and practise, doctrine and conscience to draw in 
the Yoake of our Saviour.”’—p. 41-45. 

In conclusion, after strongly urging the king to seek an alliance with 
Spain rather than unite with Holland, Lord Baltimore supplicates his 
majesty to read and ponder his communication, and to believe that nothing 
moves him to write, but his own fidelity, and the love of some of the 
king’s servants, that pray for his happiness ; ‘‘ protesting,” says he, “and 
taking God to witnesse that I write by no instruction of foreigners, nor 
for no pension nor obligation to any foreigne Prince whatsoever.” 

It seems not improper to mention here a remarkable passage in a letter 
written by Lord Baltimore to his friend Strafford, August 12th, 1630, 
referred to by Anderson, in his History of the Colonial Church, vol. 2. p. 
115. With a view, as it would appear, of showing the affection enter- 
tained by Roman Catholics for the family of Charles, Lord Baltimore 
describes the manifestations of joy in the Court of Spain, on hearing that 
Queen Henrietta Maria had given birth tothe Prince of Wales. He says, 
«the King, Queen and all the Court in bravery, not so much as the 
young infant of so many months old but had his feather in his cap; and 
all the town full of masks and musick. And not only the Temporal 
State, but the Spiritual express their gladness: The Heads of the clergy 
and all the Religious Houses in the city came to the ambassador in the 


71 


name of their Bodies, to congratulate with him the birth of the Prince, 
and solemn Masses and Prayers were said for his health and prosperity 
every where. Thus your Lordship sees that we Papists want not charity 
to you Protestants, whatsoever the less understanding part of the world 
thinks of us.” Strafford’s Letters, 1. 53. 

Anderson remarks upon this extract, that, think what we may of the 
sincerity of the writer, who lays stress upon such proofs of charity, he 
leaves entirely out of sight the fact that Queen Henrietta was of the same 
communion with those who expressed so much joy ;—and that it might 
justly be regarded, not as a proof of charity or tolerant feelings towards 
Protestants, but rather of exultation in the prospect thata Roman Catho- 
lic Prince might again be seated on the throne of England. 

Such, certainly, may have been the real grounds of the proceedings at 
Madrid; but it seems hardly possible that Lord Baltimore would have 
represented the subject as he did, to a man so penetrating and acute as 
Wentworth, unless he had entertained, personally, some convictions of 
that nature. 


AGEL EDEN TX. Nuon ea: 


Tue expression “‘sacrosancta Dei et vera Christiana Religio” in our 
Latin Charter, is rendered in the English translation, ‘‘ God’s holy and 
true Christian religion ;”?—but a critical examination of the terms used 
and of the context, will shew that such a rendering is incorrect. 

The whole passage reads as follows: “Proviso semper quod nulla 
fiat Interpretatio per quam Sacrosancta Dei et vera Christiana Religio 
aut Ligeantia Nobis Haeredibus et successoribus nostris debita immu- 
tatione prejudicio vel Dispendio in aliquo patiantur.’ 

If “religio” and “‘ligeantia’’ are the only nominatives, the verb, accord- 
ing to the usual Latin construction, (from which there are, it is true, 
occasional exceptions,) should be in the singular number; since they are 
disjunctively connected by “aut.”” We are therefore led to look for 
another nominative case; and a moment’s examination shews us that the 
word Dei, if the old translation is correct, is entirely out of place; but 
by making “‘sacrosancta” a neuter adjective, governing the genitive “ Dei,” 
we have at once a solution of the difficulty, and an expression which, by 
its connection with the words “vera Christiana religio,” affords a suffi- 
cient reason for using ‘‘ patiantur” in the plural number. 

The true meaning and scope of these words have been the subject of 
much discussion. One view of them is, that they are but a repetition, 
with a slight modification, of a form of expression usual in charters of 
that and even an earlier period, and intended to secure conformity to the 
established church —another, that they were designedly introduced by 


72 


the first Lord Baltimore into the charter, as the basis of a broad toleration, 
which was to include the long persecuted Roman Catholics, and which 
was acted upon by his son Cecilius, the founder of the colony. 

There may be some truth in both these opinions. If, as Chalmers 
asserts, the Charter of Maryland is a literal copy of that of Avalon, the 
construction to be put upon its provisions, especially in regard to religion, 
must depend upon the faith of Lord Baltimore at that period. If he was 
then a Protestant, as is generally asserted, the charter would be drawn 
in terms manifesting full confidence in the grantee, as a member of the 
established church. If he was a Catholic, we might expect to find some 
indications of the fact, in cautionary expressions in the charter, unless his 
adherence to the Church of Rome was unavowed, or if known to the 
king, was winked at by him, in consideration of the faithful services of 
the Secretary, and in view of the negotiations then going on with the 
Catholic Court of Spain. 

If the charter of Maryland had been drawn by Lord Baltimore himself, 
at the time when the grant was decided on, we could look to it with con- 
fidence, as the exponent of the principles, civil and religious, on which he 
intended to lay the foundations of that colony. This is asserted by several 
writers, but I doubt the correctness of the assertion. In the first place, 
it is by no means probable that Lord Baltimore would be suffered to 
dictate to the king and commissioners of plantations the terms on which 
he would accept the grant;—and in the second place, we know that certain 
fundamental principles had been recognized in regard to colonization, 
which entered into the composition of all the charters granted, from the 
time of the first Virginia emigration to the latest colonial settlement. On 
examination and comparison, it will be found that the principal provi- 
sions of the charter of Maryland, and some upon which much stress 
has been laid, as constituting it a peculiarly liberal instrument, correspond 
to those of the old Virginia and even earlier charters, with such modifi- 
cations merely as serve to adapt that of Maryland to a palatinate instead 
of aroyal jurisdiction. These grants were made years before even that 
of Avalon; so that the first Lord Baltimore has received more laudation 
for tact in drawing the Maryland charter, than he really deserves. 

The opening clause of the Maryland charter announces the aim of the 
grantee to be, the spread of the christian religion and the enlargement of 
the empire. This is the established formula in the earliest grants, and only 
expresses a fact, that there was at that period a wide-spread and earnest 
zeal to convert the heathen in America, as well as to appropriate its 
fertile soil. The name of Avaton, which Lord Baltimore gave his first 
province, from the place where Christianity was said to have been first 
planted in England, may indicate that with his hopes of personal emolu- 
ment, the pious design of christianizing the native occupants of the soil 
Was uppermost in his mind. It gives no ground, however, for the asser- 
tion that his aims in either of his colonies were merely or mainly religious, 
or for any inference in regard to the faith of Proprietary or people. 


73 


The next clause in the charter that touches upon religion, gives the 
patentee the patronages and advowsons of all churches, that with the in- 
creasing worship and religion of Christ may happen to be built, with 
license for erecting churches, chapels, and places of worship, and causing 
the same to be dedicated according to the ecclesiastical laws of England. 
Had Lord Baltimore been a member of the established church, there 
would have been nothing strange in this provision;—but both he and 
Charles must have known, at the time of its insertion, that his connec- 
tion with the church of Rome, would render it difficult to comply 
strictly with the obligation it implied. Perhaps it may be said, that by 
causing churches to be consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of 
England, he might comply with his charter obligations, and at the same 
time, shift from his own shoulders the responsibility to the head of his 
church, which a personal compliance with the article would entail. 

Finally, we have the expression quoted at the commencement of these 
temarks; the origin and precise meaning of which, are questions of some 
interest. 

On looking over the old charters, granted for purposes of discovery and 
colonization, I find, as early as 1584, in Letters Patent granted by Queen 
Elizabeth to Sir Walter Ralegh, the following clause. “So always as 
said statutes, lawes, and ordinances may be, as neere as conveniently may 
be, agreeable to the lawes, statutes, government, or pollicie of England, 
and also, so as they be not against the true christian faith, nowe pro- 
fessed in the church of England, nor in any wise to withdraw any of 
the people of those lands from the allegiance of us, our heires,” &e. 

The Virginia charter of 1606, requires that “the true word and service 
of God and christian faith”? be preached in the colony and among the 
savages, “according to the doctrine, rights (rites) and religion now professed 
and established within our realm of England ;”’ and that “‘care be taken to 
hold the people in their allegiance to the king, as their immediate sove- 
reign under God.” 

The charter of 1609 declares the principal effect anticipated from the 
colonization movement to be, the conversion of the people of those parts 
**to the true worship of God and christian religion ;” and significantly 
adds, “in which respect, we should be loth that any person should be 
permitted to pass, that we suspected to affect the superstitions of the 
church of Rome;” and enjoins that no person be allowed to enter the 
colony without taking the oath of supremacy;—a regulation in effect 
equivalent toa positive exclusion of the Roman Catholics, since they 
could not, with the concurrence of their spiritual guides, take that oath. 

The Orders of the Virginia company, issued in 1619 and 1620, require 
the council “to hold the people there in the true religion and service of 
God; and in assured allegeance to his Majestie and the Crowne of 
England.” 

A similar restriction to that in the Virginia charter, in regard to Roman: 
Catholics, is inserted in a charter of New England, granted to Sir Fer- 
dinando Gorges and others, Nov. 3d, 1621. 


74 


The charter of New Albion to Sir Edmund Plowden, granted June 
21st, 1634, is almost a literal copy of that of Maryland, and the parallel 
clause in it, as there translated, guards ‘‘the word of God and true chris- 
tain religion or the allegeance due to us, our heirs, &e. from diminution, 
prejudice or injury.” 

The charter of the Province of Maine to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, 
granted April 3d, 1639, forbids any interpretation whereby ‘* God’s word, 
true christian religion now taught, proposed and maintained, &c. may 
suffer prejudice or diminution.” 

These examples are sufficient to shew that every charter contained a 
clause or clauses relative to the obligations or rights of the grantee in 
regard to religion; and that there is a remarkable similarity among them 
all. The expression ‘‘sacrosancta Dei et vera Christiana religio,” which 
I translate ‘* the holy service of God and true christian religion,’ seems 
equivalent to those quoted in the Virginia and other charters, of which, 
unfortunately, we have not the Latin versions, to test the closeness and 
accuracy of their rendering. My translation, if correct, closely resembles 
the clause in the order of the Virginia Company, except that the terms 
are transposed. The expressions in the charters of Maine and New 
Albion are the same as in ours, excepting that what I render “‘holy service,”’ 
they render “ word.’? Whether sacrosancta is the equivalent term in 
each, I cannot say; as I am unable to refer to Latin copies of those char- 
ters. The phrase, however, in our charter, is coupled with the clause 
relating to allegiance in such a manner as to render it somewhat doubtful 
which of the words, “change, prejudice, or diminution” is to be applied 
to the former subject, and which to the latter. I presume the original 
intent of the clause was, to guard against any ‘‘change” in the rites or 
ceremonial forms and doctrines of the established church, and any 
“ prejudice, or diminution” of the royal prerogatives. 

Still, it is by no means improbable that the expression in the Maryland 
charter was designedly shorn of the restrictive terms, “‘ according to the 
doctrines, &c. of the church of England,” used in the Virginia charter of 
1606, and of the intolerant prohibition relative to Roman Catholics which 
disfigured that of 1609;—leaving the clause in a form so conveniently 
indefinite, that the “holy service of God and the true christian religion,” 
might be construed to mean, either that professed by the Protestant, or 
that maintained by the Roman Catholic division of the church. 

This view is strengthened by the fact, that, though the charter of New 
Albion, given to Sir Edmund Plowden, June 21st, 1634, just two years 
after the Maryland charter, contains the same unrestricted clause, yet the 
New England charter, granted to Gorges before that of Maryland, con- 
tains a clause carefully excluding all Roman Catholics, while that of 
Maine to Gorges in 1639, guards ‘ God’s word, true christian religion 
now taught, professed, and maintained, the fundamental laws of the realm, 
and allegiance,” against prejudice and diminution. 


75 


So far as Charles is concerned, if this view be correct, his tolerance, in 
allowing such a modification of the usual formula, would amount to a 
qualified concession to the professors of the same faith with the grantee; 
a measure by no means surprising ata period when the favor shewn to 
Roman Catholics was as marled, as the burthens laid upon the Puritans 
were oppressive. As to the first Lord Baltimore,—his death before the 
charter was even formally issued, leaves us to infer his principles of 
action and his objects, mainly from his faith, his known political views, 
and the tenor of his published writings; neither of which would lead us 
to anticipate a tolerant regard of those sectarians at least, (the Calvinists,) 
whose presence in any state, he declared to be a sure precursor of its 
destruction. 


I must acknowledge my obligations to my friend Branrz Mayer, Esq. 
for drawing my attention to the erroneous translation of the clause upon 
which I have commented, though we do not precisely agree as to its force 
and import. That the reader may have an opportunity of comparing our 
views, I give, in addition to my own, his rendering and his reasons for 
adopting it. 

Our grounds for rejecting the old translation are nearly the same; but 
Mr. Mayer renders the expression, “‘sacrosancta Dei et vera Christiana 
religio,” ‘God’s holy rieuts and the true Christian religion.” His 
reasons for this rendering are as follows : 

“The word Sacrosanctus, always conveys the idea of a consecrated 
inviolability, in consequence of inherent rights and privileges. In a dic- 
tionary, contemporary with the charter, 1 find the following definition,— 
in verbo, Sacrosanctus. 

***Sacrosanctus: Apud Ciceronem dicebatur id quod interposito jure- 
jurando sanctum, et institutum erat; idem etiam significat ac sanctus, santo. 
Tribunus plebis dicebatur sacrosanctus, quia eum nefas erat attingere ; longe 
diviniori ratione, Catholici appellamus ecclesiam Romanam sacrosanctam. 
ees Parvus;—seu Dictionarium Cesaris Calderini Mirani: Venetiis, 

«Cicero, in Catil: 2. 8.—uses the phrase—‘ Possessiones sacrosanct,’ 
in this sense; and so does Livy in the epithet,—‘Sacrosancta potestas,” 
as applied to the Tribuneship; and, in the sentence,—‘ut plebi sui magis- 
tratus essent sacrosanct.’ 

«From the last sentence, in the definition given in the Venetian Dic- 
tionary of 1618, which I have cited in italics, it will be seen that the 
epithet had a peculiarly Catholic signification in its appropriation by the 
Roman Church.” 

I differ from Mr. Mayer in regard to the idea conveyed by the term 
sacrosancta ; and believe that, so far as it conveys the idea of conse- 
crated inviolability, it arises, not necessarily from any thing inherent in 
the subject to which it is applied, but rather from the act of consecration 
itself. It is not applied to God, his attributes, or what is inherently 
sacred, but rather to objects or subjects which, by some solemn ceremonial, 
or as Cicero says, “interposito jurejurando,”’ have been rendered sacred. 


16 






Cicero himself, (pro Corn. Balb.) denies “quicquam sacrosanct m es 
nisi quod populus plebsve sanaisset.” On this view, I should reverse th 
definition quoted above, and say, “JVefas erat tribuium Loving 
erat sacrosanctus.” cL 

The sentence in Cicero, in which the expression, w ibaa cs sacro- 
Sanctas” occurs, is as follows: “Ergo, in vastatione oninium, tuas pos- 
sessiones sacrosanctas futuras putas??? Stephani Thesaurus gives as a 
gloss on sacrosanctas,—*‘‘intactas, et ab omni injuria tutas??" Son 

I find in the early English writers the expressions, *saerosanctis 
Christi sacrificiis,”—* corpus sacrosanctum,” and “ sacfosaneta’ mys- 
teria,” but never “Spiritus sacrosanctus,” ‘* Deus sacrosanctus,” or Dei 
filius sacrosanctus.” God’s rieuts, then, could not properly be called 
*‘sacrosancta.””? The established ritual by which He is worshipped, | the 
articles used in divine service, the church in which the service is per- 
formed, in fine, all things which formally or by implication have been 
consecrated to that sacred purpose, may be called “ sacresancta.” et 

For these reasons, in connection with the fact that the Virginia and 
other charters furnish us with a key to the fundamental idea mtended 
to be conveyed in the clause, I prefer the translation, ‘‘God’s holy — 
or ‘‘service,” or “sacraments,” to any other. 


Norr.—While correcting the proof of the preceding pages of Appendix, I 
received through the courtesy of Henry G. Somersy, Esq. of London, a copy 
in Latin and in English, of the charter of Avalon. I have only room to say, that 
Chalmers’ assertion, that the Maryland charter is a literal copy of that of 
Avalon, is not correct. The passage, upon which I have commented, however, 
is the same in both charters, with the exception of ‘ vere” for “vera,”’ and, by an 
evident clerical error, the use of both ‘et?’ and * aut”? before the word * dispen- 
dium.’’ This is the passage upon which so much stress has been laid by some 
writers, as designedly introduced by Lord Baltimore into the charter of Mary- 
land, as the basis of that toleration, which he intended to make a cardinal prin- 
ciple in his colonial policy ;—but the fact of its antecedent insertion in the 
charter of Avalon, (which was originally a Protestant settlement,) granted to 
him as a Protestant, would seem to take away all ground for such anargument, 

It isa notable fact, also, that the clause, which in the Maryland charter, in 
connection with the patronages and advowsons of churches, gives his Lordship 
license ‘‘to erect chapels and other places of worship, and to cause them to be 
consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of England,” is not to be found 
in the charter of Avalon. This gives ground for the inference, that a restriction 
was deemed necessary on this point, in the charter to Lord Baltimore, as a 
Roman Catholic, which was not imposed upon him, when a recognized 
member of the established church. The insertion of this clause in the Mary- 
land charter, however, does not necessarily imply distrust of the grantee, on 
account of his religious faith ; for it exists also in charters granted to persons of 
known fidelity to the English Church, 

The clause, declaring the aim of the grantee to be the spread of the Christian 
religion and the enlargement of the territories of the kingdom,.is the same in 
both charters, 





? 7) , , ; + eee Sachs ¥ 
Mi, FUE Pa Mi As ees “2 Ve : x 
sam Sana: gree ee 


L077e aes e £3 Fano Ca«“d 
C 


CHARTER, 


CONSTITO TION 





AND ; 





For the Promotion of the Mechanic Seta: 


- TOGETHER WITH A LIST OF ITS MEMBERS, JUNIOR MEM- 
BERS, LIFE MEMBERS HONORARY MEMBERS, &c. 


TO WHICH IS ADDED? 


A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTE’S HALL. 
* 


~~ ~~ 





ot 
Formep January 12th, 1848—and Incorporaren at Decemper Session 
of the Maryland Legislature, 1849. 


- F 
MARYLAND. INSTITUTE, 
| 

| 





BALTIMORE: 
PRINTED BY SANDS & MILLS, 
No. 122 Baltimore Street 


ae 
| 
| 


os, 








Vas call 


oral NTT tap raat Ny 
; 








¢ i j 
oe hae a 
aay eet 
{6.94 a 





. or oe Tee t 
4 : te Ei oe 


{ ° es d 
4 45 ; + Oi y 
: : 


t 5 pe er ee 





CHARTER, 


CONSTITO TION 


hy - Aah ‘gars 


MARYLAND INSTITUTE, 


For the Promotion of the Mlechanie rts: 


TOGETHER WITH A LIST OF ITS MEMBERS, JUNIOR MEM- 
BERS, LIFE MEMBERS HONORARY MEMBERS, &e. 


TO WHICH IS ADDED: 


A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTE’S HALL. 


Formep January 12th, 1848—and Incorporarep at DecemMBER SESSION 
of the Maryland Legislature, 1849. 


BALTIMORE: 
PRINTED BY SANDS & MILLS, 
No. 122 Baltimore Street 





1854. 










i: ee aR ta. i 
TOPE Ce 


sat sina Fe St Ti oe 


; 
“MVE, ROTEL AAU ep Te PE 
GR PTE MM YAGOTO VE: Ba 
{we sd Lew ee 
y ; Oh is : ’ 
TALE Ses Pert Git oat AOre as 
, 
vdisiae eogeeseG Je auiasoxaipel bia Rene 
oe misitigad boeF Ae 
a eee . pihataterncity dia! 
| 
‘ 


SHORTT IARI 
PDL ULE oe SAL TRS eee ae 
ifs wae et, Soup Sat i 


es 


a) 











PEW EM OULLEL) alr 


MEMORANDA 


FOR THE 


MEMBERS AND JUNIOR MEMBERS. 





The REGULAR MEETINGS are held as follows : 

Or THE InstitTuTE—Monthly—2d Wednesday evening. 

Or THE Board or Manacers—Monthly—lst Monday 
evening preceding the Institute’s meeting. 


HOURS OF MEETING. 

The Institute.—At 7 o’clock, P. M. in November, Decem- 
ber, January, and February ; at 74 o’clock in March, April, 
September and October ; and at 8 o’clock in May, June, Ju- 
ly and August, 

Board of Managers.—At the same hours as the Institute. 





SCHOOL OF DESIGN. 


The School will be in session three evenings—(Monday, 
Wednesday and Friday, as a general rule)—in the week, at 
7 o’clock, to February Ist, and at 74 o’clock for the balance 
of the season. ‘The whole term lasts four months, from No- 
vember to March. 





LECTURES. 


The Lectures before the Institute begin during the month 
of November, and take place (as a general rule) once a 
week, on Tuesday evenings, until the close of the season, 
which is in the month of March. Each Lecture will be duly 


advertised in the daily papers as it is aboutto be held. They 
are held in the main saloon. 


4 


LIBRARY AND READING ROOMS. 


Front Room on first floor of the Hall—Open every day 
from 4 to 6 and from 7 to 9 P. M.—except Saturdays, when 
it will close at 8 o’clock P. M. 





TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE INSTITUTE. 


THREE DOLLARS PER ANNUM, and two dollars on joining, 
making five dollars for the first year, payable in advance, on 
the 1st day of September. 

Twenty-five dollars will constitute any person a MEMBER 
FOR LIFE ; entitled to all the privileges of annual members. 

No Member or Junior Member shall be entitled to admis- 
sion to the Exhibition, Lectures, School of Design, Library, 
&c., until his annual contribution for the current year shall 
be paid. 

The use of Tickets of Membership is inno case to be 
transferred. 

Junior Members, (youths between 12 and 21 years,) are 
charged but half the sum levied upon Members, or two dol- 
lars and fifty cents for the first year, and one dollar and fifty 
cents yearly thereafter. ‘They are entitled to all the privil- 
eges of the members except that of voting at the business 
meetings. 


THE INSTITUTE’S CHARTER. 





An Act Incorroratine the Maryland Institute 
for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts. 


Szction {. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, 
That the members of the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the 
Mechanic Arts, and all those who shall hereafter become members, shall 
be, and are hereby incorporated and created a body politic, by the name, 
style and title of the “Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Me- 
chanic Arts ;”’ and by that name shall have succession, and be able and 
capable in law to sue and be sued, to plead and be impleaded, in any 
court of record or elsewhere; to make, have and use a common seal, 
and the same at pleasure to alter or renew; to receive donations, gifts, 
grants, devices and bequests, or other conveyances of money, goods, 
chattles, effects, lands, tenements and estates, real and personal, and the 
same to hold, use, sell or otherwise dispose of, and convey, and general- 
ly to do all such acts, matters and things, as are or shall be necessary to 
carry into full effect the objects of the said corporation; provided al- 
ways, that the property owned by said corporation shall not exceed in 
value one hundred and twenty thousand dollars. 

Secrion 2. And be it enacted, That the members of the said corpo- 
ration shall consist of Manufacturers, Artizans, and all persons friendly 
to the Mechanic Arts, who shall hereafter be elected in such manner, 
and pay such sum annually, orin gross, or an annual or life subscrip- 
tion, as the Constitution or By-Laws of the said corporation shall ap- 
point or require: provided always, that two-thirds of the Board of Di- 
rectors of said corporation shall be practical manufacturers or mechanics. 

Section 3. And be it enacted, That the objects of the said corpora- 
tion shall be the encouragement and promotion of manufactures and the 
mechanic and useful arts, by the establishment of popular lectures upon 
the sciences connected with them; by the formation of a School of De- 
sign adapted to mechanical and manufacturing purposes; for providing 
a Library, Reading Room and a Cabinet of Minerals, Models, and Me- 


6 


chanical Apparatus; for holding Annual Exhibitions or Fairs for articles 
of American Manufacture, and for offering Premiums, or awards for ex- 
cellence in those branches of national industry, deemed worthy of en- 
couragement ; by examining new inventions submitted for that purpose, 
and by such other means necessary for the accomplishment of their ob- 
jects as experience may suggest. 

Secrion 4. And be it enacted, That the affairs of the said corpora- 
tion shall be conducted and managed by a President, a board of Diree- 
tors, and by such other officers, and in such manner, as the Constitution 
ot By-Laws of the same shall authorise and provide; that such officers 
and directors shall be elected annually at a meeting of the said corpora- 
tion to be held in the city of Baltimore on the second Wednesday in Jan- 
uary; and that until the second Wednesday in January, in the year one 
thousand eight hundred and fifty one, the present Officers and Directors 
of the Society, to wit: Josuua Vawsant, President; James Murray 
and Edward Needles, Vice Presidents; Samuel Sands, Recording Sec- 
retary; William Prescott Smith, Corresponding Secretary; Thomas J. 
Clare, Treasurer ; and Josiah Reynolds, C. W. Bentley, John Feast, 
Jessee Marden, W. Abrahams, Thomas Trimble, William Rodgers, EK. 
Whitman, Jr., D. M. Adams, Wm. Bayley, C. Conway, Robert Errick- 
son, Samuel McPherson, William Fergusson, Isaac Brown, H. R. Ha- 
zlehurst, John £&. Davis, James Young, William Peters, John T. Fardy, 
Samuel E. Rice, William Robinson, Ephriam Larabee and B. 8. Ben- 
son, Directors, shall conduct the affairs of the said corporation conform- 
ably to the Constitution and articles promised and agreed to by the 
members previous to the passage of this Act. 

Section 5. Andbeit enacted, That the duties and rights of the mem- 
bers of the said corporation, the power and functions of the officers 
thereof, mode of supplying vacancies in office, the time of meeting of 
said Corporation and of the Board of Managers, the number which 
shall constitute a quorum at any such meeting, the mode of electing 
members, the terms of their admission, the terms which shall justify 
their suspension or expulsion from the corporation shall be regulated by 
the Constitution and By-Laws of said corporation now existing, or here- 
after to be made, which the said corporation is hereby authorised and 
empowered to make and alter in the manner which may be therein men- 
tioned ; provided, that the said Constitution and By-Laws shall not be re- 
pugnant to or inconsistant with the Constitution or Laws of the United 
States or the State of Maryland. 

Section 6. And be it enacted, That the said corporation shall not is- 
sue any note, scrip or bill of credit to circulate as a currency. 


7 


Section 7. And be it enacted, That said act of incorporation shall 
inure for thirty years, and that the Legislature of Maryland reserves to 
itself the right to amend or repeal the same at pleasure. 





We hereby certify that the aforegoing is a true copy of the Original 
Bill which passed both branches of the General Assembly of Maryland 
at December Session, eighteen hundred and forty-nine. 

Given under our hands at the City of Annapolis, this fifteenth day of 
February, 1850. 

GEORGE G. BREWER, Clerk House Delegates, Md. 
JOS. H. NICHOLSON, Clerk Senate, Md. 





AMENDMENT TO CHARTER. 


AvoprTep January, 1852. 


An Act to alter and amend an Act incorporating the Maryland Institute for 
the Promotion of Mechanic Aris, passed December session, eighteen hun- 
dred and forty-nine, chapter one hundred and fourteen, so as to allow 
said Institute to establish a Department of Analytic Chemistry, and con- 
fer Diplomas upon Graduates thereof. 

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, 
That the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Mechanic Arts, for 
the purpose of extending its means of education, is hereby authorised 
to establish a Department of Analytic and Applied Chennistry, and to ap- 
point a Professor, and as many adjuncts for said Department, as the re- 
quirements of the same may, from time to time, demand. 

Section 2. And be it enacted, That the Maryland Institute shali 
‘have power to graduate students in Chemistry, and to grant diplomas to 
such, as after examination and recommendation by the professor, are 
worthy of the distinction. 






Fads nobmoqerai Wo 198 bige 


adet yeas bites ey M 18° Sat 


j ? 
FT 4 manenipigs 
ie muipligy 


i 
- A ‘ 
vee it) ie {ul 

i ‘y 


- banlyy Mt Yo vidw ery tia 

; Nh leehate ta agi 
th “ashi aaes wena A | 1o tnd eat a 
bg Fug at he » wee 
| aM, ak iol | SOE Pwd A 
a Rastonatchois 























CID Dn 


at slotitant } 

en Tyit Us wt lng it 
HU AD! 34 , as 1M ota a tye 

tee et i ae 

(Wray Gl ch OB att, Si HA eS 
“ dy See Tada y iy Se wie 
: ' Nyrvadl Yh t 
enn 4h aay oft el Dh 
J Tay sriaigee ay ott leg uf ; 
AMVs Taine al oo sEier ! > linge yoy Ce L y 
e oO}, f, 17 & iu re A | A ite “ we + ae 


TEM OU ay 98} 


igamaiie: YE inka, wh of 10] 








i on) i 


- naaawe aps} a “uh ey 


s 
i, 


Fae | Al 
Kacke aanptaonk, heater? at Sate Be 
" eogjal re dayaz 2 ie hie a, ‘fete vel 2 a 


J 


: a pe, 
£ MP we ceotabenregers rit 


nadie, 
Moetiyces 


/ 
ae sy , 


RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
OF MARYLAND, granting an Annuity of $500 to the In- 
stitute,—adopted February 8th, 1850. 


By tHE Hovst or Soe ane 
February 8th, 1851. 

Wuereas, the Legislature of the State of Maryland has evinced a 
disposition to encourage Agricultural labor, and has, by the appointment 
of a State Chemist, awarded to that branch of industry, the advantage of 
its aid in discoveries promotive to its profitable pursuit ;—and whereas, 
the improvement and extension of the Mechanic Arts equally deserve 
the countenance and patronage of the State, and are alike conducive to 
individual happiness and State prosperity ;—and whereas, acting under 
the influence of an enlightened spirit, the Legislature of Maryland at its 
December Session, 1829, by resolution No. 45, did contribute through 
its Treasury to the promotion of Mechanic Arts, which contribution was 
continued until by disasters the Maryland Institute, the then object of her 
bounty, ceased to exist:—and whereas, the Institute has been revived 
and is now in advance progress, and it is proper that its utility should 
be enlarged,— 

Resolved by the General Assembly of Maryland, That the Treasurer 
of the State of Maryland be and is hereby directed, to pay annually to 
the President of the Maryland Institute for the Promotion of the Me- 
chanic Arts, within one month after said Institute shall have held its an- 
nual exhibition, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars; provided, it shall be 
shown to the Treasurer that the said Institute is in efficient operation at 
the time of such payment. 


By Order, 
G. G. BREWER, Clerk. 





State of Maryland, to wit: 

Be it remembered, and we hereby certify, that the aforegoing is a true 
copy of the resolution in favor of the Maryland Institute for the Promo- 
tion of the Mechanic Arts, which passed both branches of the General 
Assembly of Maryland, at December Session, 1849. 

.Given under our hands at the City of Annapolis, this 23d day of 
April, 1850. 
GEORGE G. BREWER, Clerk House 
Delegates, Md. 


JOS. H. NICHOLSON, Clerk Senate, Md. 


Officers for 1853-'54. 





PRESIDENT. 
JOSHUA VANSANT. 


VIGE-PRESIDENTS. 
ADAM DENMEAD, 
GEORGE R. DODGE. 


RECORDING SECRETARY. 
SAMUEL SANDS. 


CORRESPONDING SECRETARY. 
WM. H. YOUNG. 


TREASURER OF THE INSTITUTE. 
THOMAS I. CLARE. 


TREASURER OF THE HALL FUND. 
JAMES W. ALLNUT. 


MANAGERS. 
WM. PRESCOTT SMITH, JOHN F. MEREDITH, 
N. H. THAYER, B. S. BENSON, 
JOHN DUKEHART, THOMAS CARROLL, 
W. 8S. THOMPSON, ANDREW FLANNIGAIN, 
THOMAS STOW, EMERSON AMES, 
THOMAS TRIMBLE, JAMES McNABB, 
CAMPBELL MOREFIT, WOOD. ABRAHAMS, 
WM. BAYLEY, JOSIAH REYNOLDS, 
T. J. LOVEGROVE, CHAS. E. WETHERED, 
W. A. BOYD, EVANS ROGERS, 
WENDEL BOLLMAN, JAMES 8. SUTER, 
C. W. BENTLEY. WM. W. MAUGHLIN. 


(> Nore.—The seven chief officers are also Managers ex-officio, and 
with the twenty-four others, constitute a Board of thirty-one Managers. 


Actuary—JOHN S. SELBY. 


Professor of Drawing in School of Design—WM. MINIFIE. 





Professor of Chemical Department—Da. A. SNOWDEN PIGGOT. 


Standing Committees for 1953-54. 





On The Exhibition. 
THOMAS TRIMBLE, Chairman. 


ADAM DENME4D, JOHN Tf. MEREDITH, 
EMERSON AMES, GEORGE R. DODGE, 
THOMAS STOW, THOS. J. LOVEGROVE, 
C. W. BENTLEY. THOMAS I. CLARE. 





On School of Design. 
C. W. BENTLEY, Chairman. 


W. ABRAHAMS, JAMES McNABB, 
W. BOLLMAN, THOMAS STOW, 
WM. W. MAUGHLIN. JAMES S. SUTER. 





On Lectures. 
CAMPBELL MORFIT, Chairman. 





N. H. THAYER, “EVANS ROGERS, 
WM. H. YOUNG, W. PRESCOTT SMITH. 
On Library. 

WM. I. YOUNG, Chairman. 
THOMAS CARROLL, WM. A. BOYD, 
JOHN DUKEHART, B. S. BENSON. 





On the Ifall. 
WM. BAYLEY, Chairman. 
W.S. THOMPSON, GEORGE R. DODGE, 
JOSIAH REYNOLDS, SAMUEL SANDS. 





On Chemical Department. 
WILLIAM S. THOMPSON, Chairman. 
A. FLANNIGAIN, N. H. THAYER, 
CHAS. E. WETHERED, THOS. J. LOVEGROVE, 





On Finance. 
JOSHUA VANSANT, Chairman. 
JAS. W. ALLNUT, CHAS. E. WETHERED, 
A. DENMEAD, A. FLANNIGAIN. 





On New Inventions, &c. 
JAMES MURRAY, Chairman. 


EMERSON AMES, JOHN RODGERS, 
JAMES McNABB, F. W. KING, 

JOHN JONES, JOHN RYAN, 

GB HUND, HENRY POLLOCK, Sec’y. 





COMMITTEE ON AWARDS, 
ANDREW FLANNIGAIN, Chairman. 


WM. H. YOUNG, JAMES MURRAY, 
N. H. THAYER, HENRY SNYDER, 
JOHN DUKEHART, EMERSON AMES, 
WENDEL BOLLMAN, WOODWARD ABRAHAMS, 


THOMAS CARROLL, WM. PRESCOTT SMITH. 


roa} 
“sy 
’ 


iy hel ye Aaa: hd 11) he wh 






Aine ey is AMA fon Mat 


i ai 
CNSR! ORGS 








ve leyimaail, 
Oa ae ACIS he bs 


are 5 


. a ee) eee 
Ohana ao” ties 
viv ante’ uy eee 
oe es pig ‘ if a 
abe HG & if , k me 
bepremned | 
‘ka ity ed aD ‘by 
_ ebsieeden Reape. 
Ae TARE 24 U Laie MEE CED 
<t ‘ed 8 ye i ia if 4 ay; ; 
bing ‘ wy 


nr ee tn ley BUNA,” bi ghee 
hele col , 
Aide Van ae es ay 


v4 Ki 7%! f aoe o (ind f 


ay di 


tte 


"a 


sep ape ig ORD AS A ka 
SRSA is i” 


ya oe Gees IfQot. 









- 


"i 


Ae aD 
4 wep 

ied 
i in ne 


en 


wa 


fia be' vis &) REO K, ean ha: hy 


Yt AGEN ARI AL idiot 


NiO ee Ve aes 
TOR vst SMe Was eet: 






fae 
CEL PTO HAI, l 
STONY 0 Bl ‘e (era a 


PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION. 





Wuereas, the Mechanics, Manufacturers, Artizans and 
other citizens of Maryland, impressed with the importance of 
fostering the inventive genius of their countrymen, of exalt- 
ing the character of the members of their respective profes- 
sions, and of increasing the trade and business of the commer- 
cial mart of the State, and having associated themselves to- 
gether, and obtained a charter from the Legislature of Mary- 
land, under the name and title of the ‘‘Maryianp InstI- 
TUTE FOR THE Promotion oF THE Mecuanic Arts ;’’— 
to accomplish the objects in view, have made provision : 

Ist. For holding an Annual Exhibition, where American 
Mechanics, Manufacturers, Inventors and Artists, and all who 
may have made any discoveries in the Arts and Sciences, 
may be enabled to exhibit the productions of their skill and 
ingenuity, in competition for the medals, diplomas, and other 
prizes which may be offered by the Institute for superiority. 

2d. For examining and reporting upon the merits of new 
inventions and improvements whenever desired. 

3d. For the formation of a School of Design, adapted to 
Mechanical, Manufacturing and Scientific purposes, in which 
the members of the Institute may be taught the art of Draw- 
ing and Designing, a branch of education so necessary in eve- 
ry business and profession connected with the Mechanic Arts. 

Ath. For the establishment of Popular Lectures, on sub- 
jects mainly connected with Manufactures, Mechanics, and 
the useful Arts. 

5th. For the formation of a Library and Reading Room, 
a Cabinet of Minerals, Models, and Philosophical and Me- 
chanical apparatus. 


14 


6th. For establishing a School of Applied Chemistry, to 
be called the ‘‘Chemical Department of the Maryland In- 
stitute,’’ where the science may be thoroughly taught in all 
its branches, under a Professor and Assistants. 

In order to make the necessary provision, for effecting these 
desirable purposes, in obedience to the requisitions of the 
Charter, they have established the following Constitution and 
By-Laws for their government. 


CONSTITUTION. 





ARTICLE I.—NAME AND OBJECT. 

Sec. 1 This Association shall be known and designated 
as the ‘‘Maryianp InstiruTE FoR THE PRomMOTION oF 
THE Mecuanre Arts.”’ 

Sec. 2 The object of the Institute shall be the promo- 
tion and encouragement of Manufactures, the Mechanic and 
Useful Arts—and the mental improvement of the industrial 
classes. 

ARTICLE !L.—MEMBERSHIP. 

Src. 1. Any person may become a member of the Insti- 
tute in the manner hereinafter provided for.in the By-Laws. 

Sec. 2. The members shall be divided into four classes, 
viz :—Members, Junior Members, Life Members, and Hono- 
rary or Corresponding Members. 

Sec. 3. Memsers shall be over twenty-one years of age, 
and friendly to the objects of the Institute. 

Junior Mempers sliall be minors, not younger than twelve 
years of age. 

Lire Memsers shall be such persons as pay twenty-five 
dollars to the Institute for Life Membership. 

Honorary or Corresponpinc MemBers shall be per- 
sons of distinguished reputation, in connection with the ob- 
jects of the Institute, or such as may have rendered it impor- 
tant service. They shall be elected by the Board of Mana- 
gers, at their stated meetings, who shall report such election 
to the next stated meeting of the Institute. Two-thirds of 
those present shall be required to elect am Honorary Member. 


16 


ARTICLE III.—OFFICERS. 

Sec. 1. The Officers of the Institute shall be as follows : 
a President, two Vice Presidents, a Recording Secretary, a 
Corresponding Secretary, a Treasurer of the Institute, a Trea- 
surer of the Hall Fund, and Twenty-Four Managers, the 
whole comprising a Board of Managers, thirty-one in num- 
ber—at least two-thirds of whom shall be practical Manufac- 
turers or Mechanics, residents of the Ciiy of Baltimore. 

Sec. 2.—Treasurer’s Bond. 

The Treasurers’ shall each give bond for the faithful dis- 
charge of their respective duties, in the sum of $2000, with 
one or more securities, to be approved by the Board of Mana- 
gers, said bonds to be renewed annually in cases of re-elec- 
tion, and in all cases to be given or renewed within 10 days 
of the election of either or both of the officers. 

ARTICLE IV.—MEETINGS. 

Sec. 1. Monthly meetings of the Institute shall be held 
on the Second Wednesday of each month. 

Sec. 2. Special meetings shall be called by the President, 
on application of the Board of Managers, or at the written re- 
quest of twelve members. 

Sec. 3. At the staied monthly meeting in April the An- 
nual Reports of the Treasurers, Board of Managers, &c. shall 
be read. 

Sec. 4. The Annual Meeting of the Institute, for the 
election of officers, shall be held on the third Wednesday in 
April, when no other business shall be in order. 

Sec. 5. In default of an election at the annual meeting, 
the existing officers shall continue in office until others are 


properly elected. 
ARTICLE V.—QUORUM. 


Src. 1.—Of the Institute. Any fifteen members present 
at the time and place appointed for holding the annual, spe- 
cial, stated and adjourned meetings, shall constitute a quorum 


17 


for the transaction of the ordinary business of the Institute, 
but thirty members shall be required to be present at all meet- 
ings for the election of any officer or officers. 

Sec. 2. All business shall be considered ordinary, except 
a proposition to dissolve the Institute, which shall be consi- 
dered extraordinary, and shall require a majority of all the 
members to constitute a quorum for its consideration. 

Sec. 3. Notice of extraordinary business shall be given 
at least three months previous to that in which it is to be dis- 
cusssed. 

Sec. 4.—Of the Board. At all stated or first adjourned 
stated meetings of the Board of Managers, nine members 
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 

ARTICLE VI.—MEMBERS’ FEES. 

Sec. 1. Members, on their election, shall pay to the Ac- 
tuary an initiation fee of Two Dollars, and an annual sub- 
scription of Three Dollars, payable in advance on or before 
the first day of September in each and every year. 

Sec. 2. Junior members, on their election, shall pay to 
the Treasurer an initiation fee of one dollar, and an annual 
subscription of one and a half dollars. They shall be entitled 
to such privileges, except that of voting—and subject to such 
regulations as the Institute or Board of Managers may deter-. 
mine. 

Sec. 1. No member shall be entitled to vote if in arrears 
with his subscription ; and in no case shall members be euti- 
tled to the benefits of the Institute unless they have complied 
with the requirements of the Constitution and By-Laws. 

Sec. 2. All nominations of elective officers for the annual 
election must be made at the stated meeting in March, or at 
least one month previous to the time of election; neverthe- 
less, nominations may be made on the night of the second 
Wednesday in April, provided a majority of the members 
present concur in a motion. to that effect,—but no nomination 
shall be made upon the night of the annual election, except 


18 


by unanimous consent ;—and no election shall be valid, with- 
out the party shall have been duly nominated as herein pro- 
vided. An election to fill vacancies caused by death, resigna- 
tion or otherwise, may be had at any stated meeting of the 
Institute. 

Sec. 3. All officers of the Institute shall be elected by 
ballot ; and in case of plurality of candidates, the lowest shall 
be withdrawn after each ballot succeeding the third. 

Sec. 4. The presiding officer shall have no vote while in 
the chair, except in case of a tie, of an election by ballot, or 
when the yeas and nays are called. . 

Sec. 5. In all elections for officers of the Institute, a ma. 
jority of the whole number of votes cast shall be necessary 
for a choice; provided there be at least thirty votes cast in 
each ballot at an annual or other election of officers. 

ARTICLE VIII.-MAN AGEMENT. 

The Board of Managers shall have the management of the 
funds of the Institute, and all matters of finance connected 
therewith, and shall employ its revenues on the following ob- 
jects, viz: 

First. In providing an Annual Exhibition of the produc- 
tions of American skill and industry, to be held in the city of 
Baltimore. 

Second. In affording at all times every reasonable facility 
for the trial and examination of such new inventions and im- 
provements as may be submitted to the Board for that purpose. 

Third. In conducting a School of Design, adapted to 
mechanical, manufacturing, artistic and scientific purposes. 

Fourth. {n the establishment of popular Lectures on sub- 
jects connected as far as practicable, with manufactures, me- 
chanics, and their collateral sciences. 

Fifth. In the formation of a Library and Reading Room, 
a Cabinet of Minerals and Models, and Philosophical and Me- 
chanical Apparatus. 

Sicth. In fostering the Chemical Department of the In- 
stitute. 


19 


ARTICLE IX.—COMMITTEE ON INVENTIONS, IMPROVEMENTS 
AND DISCOVERIES. 

Sec. 1. At the first Stated Meeting of the Institute in 
each and every year after the Annual Election, a Standing 
Committee on Inventions, Improvements and Discoveries, to 
consist of nine members, shall be elected by ballot, who shall 
serve until their successors are elected, and who shall perform 
the following duties: 

Sec. 2.—Their Duties. 

It shall be the duty of this Committee to take charge of all 
special applications to the Institute and Board of Managers 
for the trial, examination, or investigation of any new inven- 
tion, improvement, or any scientific or mechanical discovery. 
They shall proceed at once after such application has been 
referred to them to make a full investigation of the subject, 
or appoint other and suitable skilful persons from the Institute 
to make such investigation or examination, as may be neces- 
sary in order to arrive ata full and explicit conclusion as to 
the merits of the case, which examination shall be made un- 
der their supervision, and the results of which in every in- 
stance shall be made known to the Board in a written and 
detailed report signed by themselves and the parties called in 
by them, which reports must set forth briefly the reasons that 
influenced their determination, and recommend such action 
in the premises by the Board in the form of resolutions, as 
they may deem proper. 

No inventor or other person interested in the issue of an in- 
vestigation shall be present while it is under the committee’s 
consideration, except at their special invitation, and in cases 
where there may be rivalry, all parties interested shall have 
the same privileges. 

ARTICLE X.—_INCOMPETENCY OR UNFAITHFULNESS. 


Sec. 1. Officers found incompetent for, or unfaithful in 
the discharge of their duties, shall be removed by a vote of a 
majority of its members present at any regular or stated meet- 
ing. 


20 


Sec. 2. The Board of Managers may, and they are here- 
by authorised to declare the seat of any of their number va- 
cant after an absence from the Board of three consecutive sta- 
ted meetings, and report the same to the Institute, except in 
eases where leave of absence shall have been granted by the 
Board in advance. 'The Institute shall fill the vacancy in 
the manner hereinbefore provided. 


ARTICLE XI.—BY-LAWS AND RULES OF ORDER. 


By-Laws and Rules of Order for the government of the 
Institute, may be made or amended at any stated or special 
meeting, provided two-thirds of those present concur therein. 

ARTICLE XII.—ALTERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. 


To alter or amend this Constitution, notice of the proposed 
amendment shall be given at any stated meeting of the Insti- 
tute, but it shall not be acted upon until the next or a subse- 
quent meeting. 


BY-LAWS. 





ARTICLE I.—MEETINGS. 


The meetings of the Institute shall be opened in Novem- 
ber, December, January and February, at 7 o’clock; in 
March, April, September and October, at 74 o’clock ; and ia 
May, June, July and August, at 8 o’clock. 

ARTICLE II.—MEMBERS., 

Sec. 1. Persons who have been elected by the Institute 
shall sign their names to the Constitution, and pay the initia- 
tion fee, and one year’s dues, before they shall be considered 
full members. 

Sec. 2. The annual contribution of members shall be- 
come due and payable in advance on the first day of Septem- 
ber, in each and every year. 

Sec. 3. Any member whose subscription shall remain 
unpaid six months after the same shall have been due, shall 
forfeit his membership. Nor shall a member be entitled to 
any of the privileges or rights of membership, while in arrears 
to the Institute. 

Sec. 4. Members on paying their yearly dues, shall re- 
ceive a certificate of membership for the fiscal year, signed 
by the President and Secretary. 

. ARTICLE IIJ.—DUTIES OF THE OFFICERS. 
Sec. 1.—Duty of the President. 

Sec. 4. Itshall be the duty of the President to preside 
at all meetings of the Institute, and also of the Board of Man- 
agers, enforce a due observance of the Constitution and By- 
Laws, see that all officers and committees perform their re- 
spective duties, appoint all committees and officers not other- 
wise provided for, inspect and announce the results of all bal- 


22 


lotings or other votes, and direct the Secretary to call special 
meetings when application is made in accordance with the 
Constitution. He shall sign all orders on the Treasurer pas- 
sed by the Board, and none others, and perform all other 
duties devolving upon the President. 

In the absence of the President, one of the Vice Presi- 
dents in order shall preside, and in the absence of all these, 
a Presideut pro tem shall be chosen, who shall be invested 
with all the powers of the President. 

Sec. 2.—Duty of the Recording Secretary. 

The Recording Secretary shall keep a fair and aaphtuel 
record of the proceedings of the meetings of the Institute, 
and of the Board of Managers ; and shall give public notice 
of the stated and special meetings of the Institute and Board. 
All books under his charge shall be subject to the examination 
of the members of the Institute. He shall attest to all mon- 
ies ordered to be paid by the Board of Managers, and none 
other. He shall on all occasions, notify all committees of 
their appointment, and furnish the chairman of each commit- 
tee with so much of the proceedings as relates to the object for 
which it was appointed, and perform all other duties that may 
be required of him by the Institute or the Board of Mana- 
gers. 

Sec. 3.—Duty of the Corresponding Secretary. 

The Corresponding Secretary shall answer all letters ad- 
dressed to the Institute ; shall open and maintam such corres- 
pondence as may tend to advance its interests, under the di- 
rection of the Board of Managers, and keep a record thereof, 
which record shall be open for the examination of the mem- 
bers of the Board. He shall acknowledge the reception of 
all donations to the library, cabinet, &c., and shall notify hon- 
orary or corresponding members of their election. 

Sec. 4—Duty of the Treasurer of the Institute. 

The Treasurer shall receive all monies of the Institute and 

safely keep the same in such place and manner as the Board 


23 


of Mangers may direct ; and shall make no payments with- 
out written vouchers from said Board, attested by the signa- 
tures of the President and Secretary ; he shall keep full and 
accurate accounts of his receipts and disbursements, and shall 
exhibit a true statement thereof in writing to the Board of 
Managers, and the Institute, at all their stated meetings, and 
at such other times as they may require. He shall deposit, 
in such Bank as the Board of Managers may direct, all mo- 
nies received by him over and above $50, and shall, at every 
regular meeting, lay*before the Board of Managers his Bank 
book, and book of receipts and expenditures. He shall draw 
no money from Bank except by check, signed by himself, 
and countersigned by the President or Recording Secretary. 
Sec. 5—Duty of the Treasurer of the Hall Fund. 

The duty of the Treasurer of the Hall Fund shall be to 
receive and disburse all monies connected with that depart- 
ment, and to report at every monthly meeting of the Institute 
and the Board of Managers, in writing and in detail, the re- 
ceipts and disbursements for the month, and the condition of 
said fund, and at each and every annual meeting of the In- 
stitute, and the annual meeting of the Board immediately 
preceding the annual meeting of the Institute, shall present a 
full yearly report. 

ARTICEE IV.—DUTY OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS. 

Sec. 1. The President, two Vice Presidents, Recording 
Secretary, Corresponding Secretary, Treasurer of the Insti- 
tute and Treasurer of the Hall Fund, shall be ex-officio mem- 
bers of the Board of Managers. 


Sec. 2.—Eleclion of Committees and Actuary. 


It shall be the duty of the Board as soon after their elec- 
tion as possible, to elect by ballot from their own body the 
following standing committees, viz: Committee on Exhibi- 
tion, to consist of nine; Committee on School of Design, to 
consist of seven ; Committee on Lectures, to consist of five ; 
Committee on Library, to consist of five ; committee on the 


24 


Hall, to consist of five ; Committee on the Chemical depart- 
ment, to consist of five; and an Actuary, either from the 
Board or Institute at large. 

Sec. 3.—Commitiee on Awards. 

The Board shall also at a meeting immediately preceding 
the Annual Exhibition, elect a Committee on Awards, eley- 
en in number, whose duty it shall be to receive and collate 
the Judges’ Reports, and arrange the Premiums to be be- 
stowed. 


Sec. 4—General powers. 


1. The Board of Managers shall have charge of all mat- 
ters of finance, and the various concerns of the Institute, pro- 
vided for in the Constitution, reporting the same at the next 
stated meeting of the Institute. 

2. The Board shall keep regular minutes of their pro- 
ceedings, in a book prepared for that purpose. 

3. The Board shall hold regular stated meetings of their 
own body once in each month. They shall enact such rules 
and regulations, for their own government, as they may deem 
requisite. ms 

4. Nine of their number shall constitute a quorum at any . 
stated meeting, but at any special meeting, thirteen members 
shall be necessary. 

"5. They shall require all the Standing Committees to re- 
port to them monthly, and in writing, during the entire period 
of the progress and execution of their arrangements, and to 
submit a full and general report at the close of their duties; 
—and also be prepared atall times to furnish them with every 
detail connected with the respective branch of operations they 
may have in charge. 

ARTICLE V.—DUTIES OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Sec. 1.—Duty of the Committee on Exhibition. 

It shall be the duty of this Committee to make all the ne- 
cessary arrangements for holding the Annual Exhibition of 
American Manufactures, at such time as the the Board may 


25 


designate. ‘They shall have power to make all necessary con- 
tracts and disbursements, to carry out fully the object of the 
Institute in holding the Exhibition. They shall have pre- 
pared such gold, silver and bronze medals, diplomas, or other 
awards, as the Board may direct, as premiums for the first, 
second and third class American productions, of superior mer- 
it, to be determined by competent and impartial judges, and 
awarded by the Committee on Awards. They shall classify 
the articles exhibited, and shall nominate, subject to the ap- 
proval of the Board of Managers, judges on the several clas- 
ses, and as soon after the opening of the Exhibition as pos- 
sible, afford them the best opportunity for their examinations. 
They shall make explicit reports in writing of their proceed- 
ings at each stated meeting of the Board until the close of 
their duties. 
Sec. 2.—Duty of Committee on School of Design. 


It shall be the duty of the Committee on School of Design 
to make the necessary arrangements for opening the same> 
not later than the third week in November, and continue it 
open four months. They shall employ competent teachers 
to take charge of the School ; establish rules and regulations 
for its government, and have the entire contro] thereof. They 
shall be personally present as much as possible during the 
session, see that the rules and regulations are observed and 
enforced, and afford such aid to the officers of the school as 
may be required. They shall make written reports to the 
Board at each stated meeting held during the time they are 
arranging for and conducting the School, and also a full re- 
port at the close of the session, detailing the results of their op- 
erations, for the year, and showing the progress made in that 
Department. 

Sec. 3.—Duty of the Committee on Lectures. 

It shall the duty of the Committee on Lectures to make 
arrangements for, and to conduct a course or courses of Lec- 
tures, to commence in November, to be delivered at such 


26 


times and place as they may determine, and make monthly 
reports in writing upon their preparations and arrangements. 
Sec. 4.—Duty of the Committe on the Library. 

It shall be the duty of the Committee on the Library to 
purchase all suitable books, maps, &c. to the extent of the 
funds appropriated. They shall see that the Librarian per- 
forms the duties required of him. They shall make such 
rules and regulations, for the government of those who visit 
the Library rooms, as they may deem expedient and proper. 
They shall see, from time to time, what books are out of or- 
der, or require re-binding, and have the same put in order. 
They shall make monthly written reports to the Board, of 
their operations, and upon the condition of the Library. 

Sec. 5.—Duty of the Committee on the Hall. 

The duty of the Committee on the Hall shall be, to take 
charge of the Institute’s Building, to adopt the necessary 
means for keeping it in repair, and rent it from time to time, 
as demand may be made for it. They shall report to each 
meeting of the Board all the rentals of the Hall, and present 


monthly a written statement of the same, with their receipts 
and expenditures. :, 


Sec. 6.—Duly of the Committee on the Chemical Department. 

The Committee on the Chemical School shall extend a 
general supervision over its affairs, and confer at all times 
with the professor in the management of the Laboratory, re- 
porting to the Board monthly the operations and condition of 
their Department 

Sec. 7—Duty of the Actuary. 

It shall be the duty of the Actuary to attend at and take 
charge of the Hall of the Institute, see that it is kept in pro- 
per and comfortable order, and opened and closed at such 
hours as the Board of Managers or Committee on the Hall 
may direct. He shall have charge of the Library, the Cab- 
inet of Minerals, Models, philosophical and mechanical Ap- 
paratus, &c. and be responsible for the safe keeping of the 


27 


same. He shall also have charge of the books of the Insti- 
tute and Hall, and under the direction of the Board or the 
Finance Committee, keep them in such manner as will at all 
times show the exact state of Institute and Hall Funds, and 
make monthly reports of the same to the Board of Managers. 
He shall keep a correct record of all the members, alphabet- 
ically arranged ; receive and credit each with the amount of 
dues annually paid ; issue the annual tickets, and notify all 
new members of their election. He shall pay over to the 
Treasurers from time to time, as the Board of Managers may 
direct, all moneys by him received, and make monthly reports 
to the Board of the same. It shall be his duty at all times 
when called upon by any of the special or standing commit- 
tees, to confer with them, and render them as far.as lays in 
his power, all information and assistance in the arrangement 
or settlement of the affairs of the Hall or Institute, and at all 
times, as circumstances may arise, in view of which he has 
not authority to act, shall apply to the next meeting of the 
Board for instruction. 

He shall give Bond in the sum of Five Thousand Dollars 
for the faithful performance of his duties, with two or more 
sureties, to be approved by the Board. He shall perform all 
other duties required of him by the Standing Committee or 
the Board of Managers. 




























AT vii Ww end” Hill Titre, 
adh 3 rh #4 ae ern. ore 
[Bide fiw ex ronan: it hosel ort ae Gry A, 
has hi The fe. ti Ab ‘BA *" } 
Ver to riot ae ot wont 4 i ah 
t cities ‘odi. i le ae 
j 4 iy ‘tong dibor? bea, 
biti Koveok Taalecia, ‘ is : 
of) a indy vad bade Sie Ree 
ribet ortinMt Yo moet Wily fd ns 
POST yea Chait bin, be “990 ia 
earths Lbs ty i if af Mirtle W 
Minis pilus NG fest Shops ul 1H 
Of Onl aad Bie Kia tatitas Bil ee 
Nearer torptay ott AY ohicieteie baie 
Line bones; aden ined Wy TAY ii 
ae tit WSs fii’ (aulies (ete 
off} We gible oot re oF rte Ita 





syn tact tte avi We cee oA of F 
ov Wnwl Hive’ xi italy aieh Ye moe 
Ile sseait aay Thads ot Byneerwy val 1h 


ogo Peppa i pater ae 7 Se — Yo te 


é 


’ 
WAT i 


poeple 


oa oe 
i A hu os 


city yh Mit ai 





\¢ Ute ey 
‘ y nr My, 

| woe (pened en 
ebbing * a ee 


RULES OF ORDER. 





RULE I. 


The following shall be the order of business at each meet- 
ing of the Institute: 

1. The President shall take the chair at the appointed hour 
and call the meeting to order. 

2. The minutes of the proceedings of the last preceding 
meeting read and considered, except at special meetings, when 
the business for which the Institute was convened shall be 
first in order. 

(Same as to minutes of special meetings.) 

3. Proposal of candidates for membership, and election of 
the same. 

A. Reading of correspondence. 

5. Announcement of donations. 

6. Report of Board of Managers, Treasurers, &c. read and 
considered. 

7. Reports of special committees read and considered. 

8. Disposition of deferred or unfinished business, 

9. Resignations considered. ;' 

10. New business. 
RULE II. 


Should the foregoing order of business not be completed at 
any one meeting of the Institute, the order shall be resumed 
at the next meeting, where it stopped at the previous meet- 
ing, except that the first five branches of the foregoing order 
shall be called at each meeting. 


30 
RULE IIL. 


The President, while presiding, shall state every question 
coming before the Institute, before suffering debate thereon, 
and, immediately before putting it to vote, shall ask, “Is the 
Institute ready for the question ?”” 


RULE IV. 


When the decision of the President on points of order is 
appealed from, he shall state his decision, and the reasons 
therefor, from the chair. The party appealing shall then 
briefly state the reason for his appeal. 'The question, when 
taken, shall be put thus, ‘Shall the decision of the chair 
stand as the judgment of the Institute ?”’ 


RULE Y. 


Every member, while speaking, shall confine himself to 
the question under debate ; and avoid all personality and in- 
decorous language. 

RULE VI. 

Should two or more members rise to speak at the same 

time, the chair shall decide who shall have the floor. 


RULE VII. 
No member shall disturb another in his speech, except to 
call him to order. 


RULE VIII. 


If a member, while speaking, shall be called to order, at 
the request of the chair he shall cease speaking, and take his 
seat until the question of order is determined, when he may 
again proceed, in order. 

RULE IX. 


No member shall speak more than once on the same ques- 
tion until all the members wishing to speak shall have an op- 
portunity so to do, nor more than twice, without permission. 
of the Institute. 


31 
RULE X. 


All resolutions shall be reduced to writing, if required, be- 
fore the President shall state the same to the Institute. 


RULE XI. 


When a blank is to be filled, the question shall be taken 
first upon the highest sum or number, and the longest time 
proposed. 

RULE XII. 


Any member may call for a division of a question when 
the sense will admit of it. 


RULE XIiIl. 


~ When a question is before the Institute, no motion shall be 

received, unless to adjourn, to take the previous question, to 
lay on the table, to postpone indefinitely, to postpone to a 
definite time, to refer, or to amend ; and they shall have pre- 
cedence in the order herein arranged, the first four of which 
shall be decided without debate. 


RULE XIV. 


If a motion to adjourn be adopted, and the Institute has 
not previously resolved on the adjournment, to meet at a par- 
ticular period, the effect of the motion shall be to adjourn to 
the next regular meeting. 

RULE XY. 


The motion to take the previous question, may be made by 
any two numbers, and shall be put in this form, ‘‘shall the 
main question be now taken?’’ and if adopted, the effect shall 
be to bring the meeting to a vote upon the question pending 
at the time the previous question was called for. If such 
question was an amendment to an original proposition, the 
vote shall be taken upon the amendment first, and next upon 
the original proposition as amended, or not, as the case may 
be, and if the question pending is an amendment to an amend- 


32 


ment, the question shall be first taken on the last amendment, 
and so down to the orignal proposition. 
RULE XVI. ; “ 
The effect of the motion to lay upon the table, if adopted, 
shall be to prevent the question being taken up again on the 
same evening without a two-third vote. . 


RULE XVII. 


No resolution which has been rejected, shall be renewed at 
the same meeting, unless reconsidered as provided for in the 
18th rule. 

RULE XVIII. 

Any question which has been indefinitely postponed, shall 
not be renewed at any time before the next monthly meeting, 
and then only upon the condition as explained in the next 


rule. 
RULE XIX. 


All votes, other than on amendments to the By-Laws or 
Rules of Order, or indefinite postponement, may be reconsid- 
ered at the same or next regular meeting, upon a motion made 
and seconded by two members who voted in the majority, 
provided the Institute agree ; but after a motion to reconsider 
has once been lost, it shall not be renewed. 


RULE XX. 
Every member present shall vote on all questions before 


the Institute, unless incapacitated under the provisions of the 
Constitution and By-Laws. 


RULE XXI. 


A motion to excuse a member from voting shall be put 
without debate. 
RULE XXIl. 
When a motion has been declared carried or lost by the 
usual manner of voting, any member, before the Institute 
proceeds to other business, may call for a count. 


/ 


33 
RULE XXIII. 


All reports of committees shall be in writing, and when 
read to the Institute, shall be considered as accepted, without 
a vote, unless objection be made thereto. 


* * 


‘his a 

Me hie hn ak % 
Golly Dan sniiiew at od Coal a6 
iwathin by goose en harehigass od | 


bs Sm 






= 4 > s RH 


{ i Shuded ed enh 


a, (es 4 
4 
a 
i ‘ 
. , 
r. i Fe 
; [7 oe 
ay ‘i ' 
& 
: 
wv hy 
ti 
' . #By 1 Pets 
; 11 Bei. 
3 f J Y oP en "4 a halminad Say 
ul reg 


RULES OF ORDER, 


FOR THE GOVERNMENT 


THE BOARD OF MANAGERS. 


Ist. The times of Meeting of the Institute, shall govern 
the meetings of the Board. 

2d. The President of the Institute shall be Chairman of 
the Board, and in his absence a chairman pro tem. shall be 
chosen. 

- 3d. Nine members shall constitute a quorum at all stated 
and first adjourned stated meetings—but at other meetings 
thirteen shall be necessary. 

Ath. At the appointed hour of stated meetings, the chair- 
man shall call the Board to order ,when the roll shall be call- 
ed, and all absentees fined 12} cents. 

5th. Members who shall appear within ten minutes after 
roll call, shall be exempted from fine—all others appearing 
after that time shall be fined 6} cents. 

6th. The first business after roll call shall be the reading 
and approval of the proceedings of the previous meeting— 
hen Unfinished Business—Correspondence—Donations—Re- 
ports of Standing Committees—Reports of Special Commit- 
tees—and New Business. 

7th. No member shall speak more than twice on any sub- 
ject, nor longer than 5 minutes at any one time, without spe- 
cial permission of the Board. 

8th. When a member is addressing the chair on any sub- 
ject, the members shall observe silence. 


36 


9th. When a subject is under consideration no motion 
shall me made, but to adjourn, lie on the table, postpone, to 
amend, or.the previous question. 

10th. A motion for the previous question, to adjourn, or to 
lie upon the table shall always be taken without discussion. 

11th. In voting on any question, the chairman shall always 
give the casting vote, if there is a tie. 

12th. The funds collected for fines shall be safely kept by 
the chairman, and the Board shall, at its last meeting previous 
to a new election, dispose of them as it may please to deter- 
mine. 

13th. Absence from the city, or personal or family sick- 
ness shall be a sufficient excuse for non-attendance. 

14th. The Board shall be governed by the Rules of Order 
of the Institute in all cases unprovided for herein, and in 
cases where no rule of the Institute has been provided, the 


ordinary parliamentary usage shall prevail, as collated by 
Cushing. 


THE INSTITUTEH’S HALL 
AT BALTIMORE. 





The site of the Hall is a very eligible one, fronting as it 
does on Baltimore street, and within two hundred yards of 
the Merchants’ Exchange, Post Office, and City Hotel. The 
lot is that on which the head section of the old Centre Market 
stood, and has a sixty foot front, with a depth of three hun- 
dred and fifty-five feet to Second street. The basement story 
of the building, isa Tuscan Arcade, having seventy pilasters, 
with capacious archways, affording free access to the market, 
to the purposes of which this story is still devoted. 

_ The Halls of the Institute, though over the market, and 
supported by the same foundation, are entirely separated from 
it. So well, indeed, has this been done, that a stranger might 
enter the Institute many times without knowing that there 
Was an extensive market house beneath it. The main en- 
trance to the Institute, is a large archway in the centre of the 
building on Baltimore street, where you ascend a double flight 
of steps, fifteen feet wide, to the first floor. On a broad plat- 
form, half way (ten feet) up this flight, there are ticket offices 
on either side. A spacious vestibule is reached at the head of 
these stairs, on either side of which, is a large office or dress- 
ing room. ‘The grand stair hall, on this floor, is twenty-five 
feet square, at the back of which, is the Lisrary Room, 
fifty-five by thirty-six feet, with a fourteen foot ceiling. — 
Directly in front of the the landing, at fifteen, feet distance, 
is a doorway twelve feet wide, opening into the grand 
saloon ; this room, ‘‘in the clear,’’ is two hundred and fifty, 


38 


by fifty-five feet, with a thirty-two and a half foot ceil- 
ling. It has twenty windows, ten on each side, which are 
each seventeen and a half by seven; and a grand promenade 
gallery, seven feet wide on the sides, and ten feet at each end 
of the room, runing entirely around it, at a height of fourteen 
feet from the floor, and supported by eighty strong and beau- 
tiful iron brackets, set into the walls. Thus the necessity of 
obstructing the main floor by pillars or columns, or of using 
suspension rods, is entirely avoided, and the floor is left en- 
tirely free and clear—the largest clear floor in America. This 
great room is finished in a simple but really beautiful style. 
The fresco painting upon the ceiling and walls, is one of the 
most artistic specimens of that kind of work that can be found 
any where. 'The design is chaste and architecturally appro- 
propriate, and the colors are rich and well blended. In or- 
der to render this room fit for concerts or public speeches, due 
care has been taken. A beautiful cove is placed in the cor- 
nice, which has much improved its acoustic properties. Though 
not containing as much ornament as some of our public halls, 
it is thought that, asa whole, this is the finest Ball or Exhibi- 
tion Room in the country. Some two thousand persons may 
promenade the handsome galleries, while four thousand more 
may be seated, or six thousand could easily stand upon the 
main floor, making its capacity, in any event, very great. 

On a level with the floor of the grand saloon, there are, in 
each of the end buildings, large rooms, and above them are 
other rooms, on a level with the gallery floor of the grand 
saloon. ‘There is, on each of the end buildings, another floor 
still, with rooms equally as large as those below them. 


HONORARY MEMBERS. 


PELL Las 


ve 


Joun G. Morris, D. D., 
Epwarp STABLER, 

Wm. F. Lyncn, U. S. N., 
Wiruram Barr, 

J. M. S. Causin, 

Pror. Campsert Morrit 
Horace GREELEY, 

Fror. A. D. Bacue, 
Epwarp K. Couns, 
Zapock PRATT, 

G. W. Burnar, D. D., 
Pror. Samvext F. B. Morse, 
Pror. Cuaries G. Pace, 
J. H. B. Latrose, 
Ricuarp Fuirer, D. D., 
Wma. D. GaLiacuer. 
Pror. JosrrpH Henry, 
Gerorce Peagopy, 

Pror. M. F. Mavry, 

S. Teackie Watts, 
Epwarp Gray, 

Cuarces F. Sranspury, 
Joun P. Kennepy, 

W. W. Szaron, 

Tromas Swann, 

Dr. E. K. Kane, U.S. N. 
Jony W. Grirrirus, 


Baltimore. 
Maryland. 
do. 
Maryland. 
do. 
do. 
New York. 
Sup’t U. S. Coast Survey. 
New York. 
do. 
Baltimore. 
New York. 
Washington. 
Baltimore. 
do. 
Cincinnati. 
Smithsonian Institute. 
London. 
National Observatory. 
Baltimore. 
do. 
Washington 
Baltimore, 
Washington. 
Baltimore. 
Philadelphia. 
New York. 


LIFE MEMBERS. 


A. 


Emerson Ames, 
Simeon Alden, 
Geo. W. Andrews. 


B. 


N. F. Blacklock, 
Zenus Barnum, 
Chas. W. Bentley, 
Jos. L. Bonnett, 
Edwin Bennett, 
John W. Ball,: 

J. N. Bonaparte, 
Hugh Bolton, 

Mrs. William Browne, 
Richard Bishop, 
John Burris, 

Wm. Geo. Baker, 
William F. Bokee, 
James R. Baylis, 
William Bayley, 
William Bridges, 
William L. Brown, 
Thomas Balbirnie, 
John H. Barnes, 
B. S. Benson. 


C. 


H. D. G. Carroll,. 
Thomas Creamer, 
Elias Clampitt, 
Wm. Crane. 

A. Fuller Crane, 
James Cooper, 

Wm. Cordray, 
Walter Crook, Jr. 
Archibald Campbell, 
Richard B. Chenowith, 
Joseph R. Codet, 

EB. S. Corkran, 


John Campbell, 
William Chesnut, 

T. A. Cunningham, 
Mrs. Deb. Cromwell, 
Robert Craig. 
William Coughlan, 
Lewis G. Curlett, 
James E. Cochran. 


D. 


George R. Dodge, 
John F. Davis, 
Hugh Devalin, 
Thomas C. Dunlevy, 
Charles W. Davis, 
Joseph Daiger, Jr. 
John Dushane, 

John Dunlap, 

Adam Denmead, 
Benjamin Deford. 


E. 


Richard Edwards, Jr. 
Robert Eareckson, 
Henry English, 


F. 


Andrew Flannigain, 
Dr. Richard Fuller, 
Francis A. Fisher, 
L. W. T. Flannigain, 
Peter Fiamm, 

Leon Frank, 

George Frick. 

John Feast. 


GC. 


James B. George, 
James D, Gilmour,. 





William Gilmor, | 
John R. Giles, 
Isaac S. George. 
William Garrott, 
Edward Gray, 
Mrs. John Glenn, 
Israel Griffith. 


H. 


James S. Hagerty, 
Aaron Hoffman, 
Ephraim Hoffman, 
Mrs. Daniel Holt, 
Isaac Hartman, 
James W. Heron, 

H. W. Heird, 
William Hooper, 
James Hall, 

A. V. Houck, 

F. W. Hoffman, 
Thomas J. Hand, 
Johns Hopkins, 
George H. Hickman, 
Dr. F. E. B. Hintze, 
Kaufman Hamberger,. 
Orville Horwitz, 
David W. Hudson. 


J. 


Asbury Jarrett, 
Wm. Henry James, 
Basil H. James, 
W. Henry Johnson, 
Allen L. Innes, 
Reyerdy Johnson. 


K. 


George V. Keen, 
William. Kennedy. 


L. 


Ephraim Larrabee, 
George A. Lovering, 
Thomas J. Lovegrove, 
James H. Luckett, 
Milo Lewis, 

William Linton, 
James Logue, 

Amos Lovejoy, 

J. M. Laroque, 

John H. Lange. 


M. 


Andrew McLaughlin, 
William Minifie, 
Thomas Mullen, Jr. 
Horace Magne, 

R. McEldowney, 

A. C. Miskimmon, 
Alex. McComas, 

J. Howard McHenry, 
James Mitchell, 

John Murphy, 

J. W. Middleton, 
John B. Morris. 

A. G. Mott, 
William MeCann, 
Richard C. Mason, 
Robert Moore, 
Richard Mayger, 
John F. Meredith. 


N. 
J. Crawford Neilson, 


J. R. Niernsee, 
Edward Needles, 





Al 


Tsaac L. Nicholson, 
C. J. Nicholson, 
Thomas N. Neilson. 


oO. 


Charles Ogle, 
John M. Orem. 


Le 


Enoch Pratt, 
Jonathan Parker, Jr. 
William B. Perine, 
George C. Penniman, 
Charles H. Pitts, 
George Page, 
George F. Page, 

R. H. Pennington, 
Jeseph W. Patterson. 


R. 


William H. Rose, 
Joshua Regester, 
Samuel i. Rice, 
Sam’1C. Ridgaway, 
Pp. E. Reiley, 

Miss Henrietta Randal} 
Henry R. Reynolds, 
Josiah Reynolds, 
William H. Reasin, 
John G. Reaney. 


s. 


Samuel Sands, 

Wwm. Bell Sands, 
J. H. Stickney, 
Alex. L. Spear, 








Dr. Jos. S. Stevenson, 
Thomas Swann, 
Henry C. Sultzer, 

N. Stocksdale, 

Jas. E. Stocksdale, 
David B. Smull, 
Richard P. Sherwood, 
Hugh Sisson, 
Lawrence Sangston, 
John J. Snider. 


'B: 


Jacob B. Thomas, 
Joseph Thomas, 
John H. Tucker, 
Dr. J. H. Thomas, 
Richard H. Townsend, 
John.T. Thompson, 
Jacob Trust, 
Thomas F. Troxell, 
Wm. S. Thompson, 
Thomas Trimble, 
Jos. J. Turrer, 
Francis Turner, 
Edwin 8. Tarr. 


W. 


T. Yates Walsh, 
Alex. P. White. 
Wr. (Ce Wait, 
Marcus Wolf, 

Noah Walker, 

Peter Wilcox, 
Samuel G. Wyman, 
Charles Webb, 
David H. White. 



















i a-dotdh 42 
ee 


46 


tied vated? delve 


atl veeorcr 00 ae 
of cr 
: ih ato < | ¥ ev 
r j PFs ot | dav 
Th une) caddis, 
; aa ciel, aa os ae ag? bb WE a) 
joes atcripeeh 2 vyraatd 
HB palol | ween Hy aot adl i 
“*t C att ie hana ‘ 
“o wethihh: . | one D pietel any 
peed. fae Pwiguaes) to = 
V Gey * eoatvat ih a We spot’! ih 
' 7 oe } hl tajoth t 
t : al 7 ’ 
ew ant Aad Hi edlihe 
ert c itt sgwA gudedhiai 
ih 2 AD A aemess 
ew opmab OT wet 
re a 1. } 
bi es et)! ped al. 7 
¢ fom / ea ae el 
‘ ‘ 4 aa | we oe lt 
J ) j Loe. Gee tae 
ait cf Vey r 


Po ee ey | 


revlon é v9 


PO Py 
ry nety ey *Z 
Pv a eel 


a |} qt itp: at 





ANNUAL MEMBERS, 





A 
Senior Members. 


Albaugh, Hy. C. 
Achey, Charles F. 
Allnut, James W. 
Ames, Hudson N. 
Acton, Samuel G. 
Allen, G.S. 

Allison Philip S. 
Allnut, E. S. 
Arnold, John 
Armiger, John 
Arnold, George 
Anderson, Thomas D. 
Addison, William W. 
Anderson, James 
Atkinson, Samuel 
Afflick, James 
Aitkin, Alexander M. 
Airery, George W. 
Allen, Janies 
Abrahams, Woodward 
Addison, George C. 
Anderson, Wm. E. 
Anderson, Col. Jas. M. 
Adair, John 

Arnold, S S. 
Alward, William H. 
Atkinson, George 
Adams, Samuel H. 
Armstrong, James 
Abbett, Samuel R. 
Adams, James C. 
Abbott, E A. 


Atkinson, Thomas T. C. 


Amos, Dr. Corbin 
Arnold, G W. 
Addison, George M. 
Adams, Revd. Geo. F. 
Addison, Samuel S. 
Atwell, R. FI. 
Adkinson, Wm. 


Abbott, Horace 
Andrews, R. Snowden 
Asche, Julius 

Ayres, Charles C, 
Adkins, Dr. J. L. 


Junior Members. 


Allen, Robert J. 
Ash, John M. 

Amos, John 
Applegarth, John W. 
Akers, Joseph 
Ashlager, Wm. 
Adams, John A. 
Armstrong, Jas. Jr. 
Arnold, T. F. 
Allison, Robert H. 
Addison, John A. 
Adams, George 
Allen, Samuel 
Adams, C. Columbus 
Austin, Alex. R. 
Allen, L. Byron 
Atkinson, Thos. F. 
Adams, Charles S. 
Armstrong, James H. 
Auld, Edward 
Ashton, Wm. C. 
Armstrong, R. Dorsey 
Armiger, Jas. R. 
Arlow, John F. 
Ashton, J. M. 
Addison, Samuel T. 
Anderson, W. Scott 
Anderson, Clifford C. 
Adams, G. T. 

Ash, George T. 
Applegarth, G. W. 
Anderson, J. T. 
Armstrong, H. L. 
Allen, William, Jr. 
Addison, G. C. of S. 


Adams, A. M. J. 
Armstrong, John, Jr. 
Anderson, Oliver, Jr. 
Airey, Wm. F. 

Ash, Charles J. 


Senior Members. 


Benson, William 
Balderston, Jacob 
Bangs, Charles 
Bayley, J Finley 
Brashears, John P. 
Bolgiano, John 
Browne, L. B. 
Barry, George E. 
Baker, Wm. A. 
Barton, Wm. N. 
Buchwalter, Gen. 
Burt, A. P. 
Benner, Hy. S. 
Barnes, Winston 
Barnes, J.H (Painter) 
Bosley, BE. M. 
Burden, Furgus 
Barstow, Joshua 
Benson, Samuel H. 
Brown, Wm. T. 
Banks, Robert T. 
Bouldin, Augustus 
Brice, G. A. 
Baylies. Nicholas 
Barling, Joseph 
Barrett, John L. 
Bond, John H. 
Burgess, Chas. H. 
Buck, J. F. 
Bollman, Wendel 
Brown, Jehu 
Beehler. Hy. S. 
Boyd, Philip T. 


Bennett, Wm. J. 
Brown, Wm. D. 
Burgess, Caleb W. 
Becker, J. A. H. 
Bibb, B.C. 
Brooks, Wm. 
Blackburn, Cyrus 
Brown, Albert M. 
Barrett, Francis O. 
Brannan, John 
Boyd, Wm. A. 
Barlow, Joseph 
Benson, John P. 
Boyd, Wm. G. 
Barrett. John P. 
Blake, Charles 
Baughman, F. M. 
Brouzhton, P. W. 
Bender, Eimund C, 
Bidison, Zachariah 
Ballard, Thos. J. 
Brinkey, J. B. 
Burrough, Jacob 
Bump, J. L. 
Beatson, John 
Bowen, Joseph M. 


Barling, Joseph, Jr. 


Bilson, Samuel 
Bealmer, Thomas 
Rishop, W. T. 
Baughman, Joseph 
Burford, C. C. 


Bennet), Thomas S. 


Brown, Thos. M. 
Boone, Robert 
Braidwood, G. K. 
Bines, Robert 
Brown. Edward 
Boyd, J. W. 
Brown, M. J. 
Brown, Wm. A. 
Bassett, G. T. 
Butler, Samuel 
Bankard, N. D. 
Baker, R, J. 
Brent, R, J. 
Barger, Deeter 
Boyd, George S. 


Brown, Geoge W. 


Brian, Jas N. 

Bier, Jacob 
Boston, John E. H. 
Blake, Joel N. 
Brownly, Joseph 
Brewer, Nicholas 
Bool, D. W. 
Buesh, Hy. 
Brewvr, George 
Brune, John C. 





A4 


Bruce, John M. 
Brunner, Wm. T. 
Butler, Thos. 
Bond, Jas. H. 
Burnett, Samuel 
Ballard, L. E. 
Bonn, Anthony 
Bandel, Samuel L. 
Berger, John 
Bevan, R. A. L. 
Beacham, John S. 
Brady, Edward 
Boyle, Edward A. 
Brown, Robert 
Brown, C. F. 
Barton, J. J. 
Blass, Win. A. 
Boyd, Joseph C. 
Baker, F. S. 
Bennett, Benj. F. 
Boyd. F. H. B. 
Beacham, Wm. 
Billmyer, Joseph 
Baynes, Thos. 
Boyd, Wilson R. 
Brashears, J. B. 
Brown, John 
Bailey, Edwin 
Berg, Revd. John 
Baynes, James 
Bokee, George M.. 
Bonsal, Louis 
Bull, Isaac 
Briding, Ek. W. 
Boyd, J. Howard 
Beckett, Wm. 
Brown, Thomas 
Bevan, John 
Balderston, Isaiah 
Brown, Isaac 
Bailey, L. K. 
Baruleit, D. L. 
Bantz, I’. S. 

Beit, bugene N. 
Beacham, Silas 
Burbower, L. 
Burn, James M. 
Belt, Hic kinan 
Brown, Kovert, Jr. 
Bruce, Robert 
Barber, W. E. 
Barber, 5S. W. 
Betton, Thos. W. 
Buchanan, W. C. 
Bolton, Henry 


Bankhard, Joseph J. 


Battee, R. N. 
Brice, Win. N. 


Burchale, Thos, W. 





Brice, N.C. 
Baird, Prof. T. D. 
Bradley, Wm. C. 
Brown, T. J. 
Bickell, Phillip T. 
Burke, Wm. T. 
Brown, Levi K. 
Bartol, James L. 
Bevan, Thomas 
Beacham, Jas. A. 
Brien, John V. 
Bragg, Wm. F. 
Burnett, Joseph 
Burke, Jas. H. 
Boyd, Joseph H. 
Bech, F. W. 
Boyd, Andrew G. » 
Brett, C. K. 

Blair, L. P. 
Brodie, James 
Bobeth, Charles 
Burnes, John 
Bokee, John C. 
Blanchard, D. H. 
Bowers, Thos. M. 
Beary, John 
Beatty, Jas. 
Bolton. Hugh W. 
Byrn, Wm, H. 


Junior. Members. 


Benswanger, Simon 
Zenthall, T'. W. 
Beaston, J.C. 
Bolgiano, Joseph Ault 
Bolgiano, Francis W. 
Baker, N. R. 

Baker, Wm. S. G. 
Baynes, John B. 
Bullock, John 
Bixler, Daniel, Jr. 
Barton, Phi ip A. 
Bothman, Fred. 
Bothman, Gustave 
Burgess, Chas. R. 
Bancroft, Chas. F. 
Bixler, Benj. M. 
Babb, John, D., Jr. 
Blessing, George 
Broom, Daniel 
Byrne, James 
Bruning, H. H. 
Bouis, Robert G. H. 
Bowly, Samuel 
Boyd, Wm. A. Jr. 
Banks, Chas. W200 © 
Bridge, Stephen L. 
Barker, George T. 


Bringham, Vinton D. 
Brown, Jas. M. 
Buck, Edward D. 
Bayle, James 
Burke, John O. 
Bryding, George W. 
Bennett, John J. 
Buchta, John C. 
Bodensick, Chas. F. 
Brown, G. W. 

Byrn, Thos. 

Beehler, David E. 
Bower, Lewis M. 
Bartholow, L. L. 
Bartholow, J. M. 
Betts, Solomon, Jr. 
Brady, George W. 
Bancroft, John D., Jr. 
Birch, Jas. H. 
Benthall, Wm. M. R. 
Betts, T. J. 

Bridges, Wm. J. 
Baer, George 
Botterell, John 


Bowersox, Theodore K. 


Brown, Geo. W. 
Beard, George R. 
Bennett, Geo. A. 
Barron, John M. 
Browne, C. C. 
Bonn, S. G. 

Bonn, H. R. 

Bonn, D. W. 
Boult, Thos. H. 
Boult, John Wm. 
Boyle, John P. 
Beaman, Wm. A. 
Boston, Chas. H. H. 
Boggs, Robert J. B. 
Buchta, George P. 
Brachen, John 
Burrough, Samuel G. 
Brawner, Daniel W. 
Beurey, Wm. O. 
Baer, Chas. W. 
Brooke, Ballard S. 
Beal, Wm. 

Blair, C. E. 

Bell, Geo. W. C. 
Boggs, A L. Jr. 
Beaman, M. R. 
Barker. Joseph H. 
Bedford, John R. D. 
Bailey, Josiah 
Barnes, Robert, Jr. 
Boyce, Jas. T. 
Burnett, Wm. T. 
Bandel, John, Jr. 











45 


Burruss, Hy. 
Buckmiller, Wm. P. 
Burgess, Benjamin T. 
Burnham, John W. 
Baney, Chas. E. 
Bixham, Thos. 
Brunner, Andrew 
Bond, B. A. 
Brown, James 
Burke, Joseph 
Bandel, Geo. W. 
Baynes, Geo. B. 
Bayley, Wm. 
Bennett, L. B. 
Beatly, Geo. 

Ball, Samuel 
Bartholow. B. F. 
Bryan, M. A, 
Bailey, Philip 
Boyce, Edward 
Bennett, G. R. 


Burgess, Caleb W., Jr. 


Bennett, John H. 
Black, Finley 
Brown, James 
Bantum, John 
Bokee, Howard 
Brooks, G. W. 
Buckler, L. H. 
Binson, Thos. 
Birch, Charles 
Bell, Wm, 

Blair, Chas. W. 
Barneit, Jas. V. 
Bowerman, fH. 
Broadfoot, Wm. J. 
Boyd, James 
Bennett, Samuel E. 
Bracco, Edward 
Beale, Wm. T. B. 
Bartleson, A. D. 
Byrn, W. W. 
Bryan, David A, 
Bowers, Hy. A. 
Bankard, Chas. H. 
Bankard, Hy. N. 
Bennett, Thos. F. 
Buckingham, Jas. R. 
Boston, Chas. G. 
Bartrow, Joseph 
Bush, G. W. 
Bush, Wm. Henry 
Bryan, John H. 


Bond, J. Bosley, Jr. . 


Bouis, Stephen 
Bond, Edward S. 
Briscoe, Wm. 
Bollman, Jas. Jr. 





Bryan, John 
Barclay, J H. 
Bratton, Edward 
Boulden, Wm. 
Bedford, Chas. H. D. 
Bouchet, Joseph A, 
Beck, Francis 
Brewer, Daniel 
Blake, George 
Boyd, A. McK. 
Bordly, Edwaid C. 
Boone, Wm. H. 
Brown, John W. 
Betts, Chas. H. 
Bolton, Hy. 

Baker, John 

Bayly, John 
Billups, Chas. H. 
Bartroff, Lewis 
Bayley, Jas. S. 
Baster, John 
Ballard, G. Edward 
Brown, Stewart 
Baiker, E. Williams 
Bair, Wm. A. 
Behrens, Barnett 
Brown, Samuel, Jr. 
Beall, Theodore 
Brookings, Robert J. 
Black, John 
Brady, Thos. 
Bowles, John R. 
Banks, Andrew 
Byrne, Terrance 
Brown, Wm. H. 
Black, B. F. 
Brown, A. D. 
Beucke, J. P. 
Brown, Jas. A. 
Benson, Joseph E. 
Bevan, G. F. 

Bay, Nathan 

Betts, Edward, Jr. 
Brown, Wm. D. 
Blakeney, Wm. 
Bredfelter, M. 


Senior Members. 


Clark, Jas. 
Creery, Wm. R. 
Carlile, Jas. H. 
Cropper, Thos. J. 
Cross, Richard J 


Clautice, George 
Cairns, Samuel 
Cowles, Henry M. 
Cochrane, John 
Cochrane, Richard 
Clackner, G. F. 
Carner, A.S. 
Coggins, Robert 
Cunningham, C. R. 
Camp, Jas. L. 
Coggins, Chas. 
Cunningham, W. Amos 
Carson, S. R. 
Catheart, W. H. 
Cathcart, Robert 
Caskey, Robert 
Cole, Wm. H. 
Campbell, John 
Chamberlin, O. K. 
Cornelius, N. 
Conaine Lewis 
Carvel, Chas. F. 
Coon, Wm. 
Cappeau, Joseph, Jr. 
Carter, Clement 
Cross, John H. 
Campbell, John FB. 
Clark, James G. 
Cornell, Theodore 
Chappell, Samuel M. 
Crawford, Wm. H. 
Codd, Wm. H. 
Corbit, Emanuel 
Cobb, Josiah 
Chestnut, Capt. Samuel 
Creamer, David 
Corkran, B. W. 
Carroll, Edward 
Caughy, Benjamin 
Coale, Nathan 
Carroll, Thos. 
Clark, Ashur 
Cunningham, Geo. A. 
Coles, Wm. 

Cowan, Wm. H. 
Clackner, Joseph 
Cockey, S. Owings 
Cole, Jas. W. 
Childs, Jas. W. 
Carroll, Chas. C. 
Chambers, John 
Carroll, T. G. 
Clotworthy, Wm. P. 
Carson, C. H. 
Carson, David 
Carson, Joshua 
Carver, John W. 
Cook, Revd. Isaac P. 


46 


Caldwell, Jas. A. 
Chandlee, Edwin 
Cunningham, M. 
Cummings, John 
Cowles, John W. 
Cariss, Samson 
Cassard, George 
Craft, Wm. G. 
Cline, A. 

Coale, S. Robinson 
Cole, A. C. 
Caster, Robert J. 


Cushing, Joseph, Jr. 


Calder, Robert 
Cropper, Z. H. H. 
Cox, Nathaniel 
Cowman, 8S. 8. 
Cottrell, Clark 
Cole, Wm. P. 
Cole, Wm. R. 
Culberston, C. D. 
Cox, John R. 
Crocker, C. W. 
Clendennin, Dr. A. 
Carson, D. E. 
Craighton, A. W. 
Coupland, Richard 
Chadbourn, Chas. 
Coleman, Geo. A. 
Child, Samuel 
Cohen, Dr. J. J. 
Cortlan, Jas. 
Cook, Geo. 
Carroll, Chas. R. 
Crook, F. A. 
Carrico, Wm. 
Clare, Thos. J. 
Cruser, Isaac 
Clark, Geo. 
Cleveland, J. S. 
Clark, Jas. 
Caldwell, Wm. Q. 
Cohen, Jacob I. 
Cook, John F. 
Codd, Edward J. 
Chiflelle, Thos. P, 
Cohen, Israel 
Caughy, J. H. 
Crane, Dr. W. B. 
Carroll, Hy. J. 
Cowan, Henry 
Champlain, J. Bond 
Christy, Robert 
Chappell, P. S. 
Childs, Samuel, Jr. 
Christopher, Josiah 
Cooper, Hugh H. 
Carter, Darus 








Cummings, Walter B. 
Cross, Alexander 
Conradt, G. M. Jr. 
Coleburt, Dr. Joseph 
Crowley, Wm. S. 
Callis, James H. 
Coakley, P. H. 
Clifton, Junius A. 
Carroll, James 
Clarkson, William 
Clark, John P. 
Cornelius, N. 

Cole, John W. 


Junior Members. 


Crawford, Andrew A. 
Carroll, John W. 
Cobb, Edward R. E. 
Cockey, John 
Cowman, S. S. Jr., 
Cole, George B. 
Cousins, Wm. J. 
Cook, George W. 
Coonan, Michael 
Craig, J. Morrill 
Clark, Gabriel D. Jr. 
Cathcart, Chas. H. 
Cook-ey, Wm. N. 
Carson, Wm. H. 
Cole, C. M. Jr. 
Chase, Francis 
Chesney, Jesse D. 
Castine, Emanuel M. 
Crawford, Jas. B. 
Carrier, Matthew A. 
Crawford, Wm. 
Coleman, Joseph 
Chalfant, Edward J. 
Cole, Lewis H. 
Covington, Jas. H. 
Cappeau, J. T. 
Cook, J. M. 

Chew, Jas. W. 
Clarkson, Edward H. 
Cullison, Jas. 
Cassell, Thos. D. 
Craig, Daniel B. 
Clark, Stephen N. 
Coleman, Geo. 
Clark, Edward L. 
Clautice, Wm. F. 
Cornell, Mark J. 
Cole, Wm. H. 
Chambers, Geo. L 


Campbell, Robert, Jr. 
Crout, John E. 
Coggin, John 

Clark, Wm. E. 

Cox, Wm. H. H. 
Cook, Richard B. 
Coburn, J. W. 
Coffield, Eugene 
Cathel!, Jas. R. 
Claypole, Jas. Y. 
Cook, John Jas. 
Chrismer, J. 
Campbell, John C. 
Connolly, Thos. F. 
Connolly, John B. 
Carter, Edwin T. 
Cromwell, John T. 
Cromwell, E. H. 
Conradt, Christian J. 
Crownfield, H. F. K. 
Chandler, Kernard 
Colburn, N. K. 
Cooper, Jas. J. 
Crane, Chas, 

Cox, Wm. P. 
Coster, B. F. 
Chappell, P. Edmund 
Carson, Edward 
Cushing, John, Jr. 
Chapin, Chas. P. 
Cole, Wm. H. 
Cripps, Wm. W. L. 
Clark, Francis 
Cromwell, O. H. 
Cockey, John R. 
Chasteau, Thos. E. 
Chipman, Edward H. 
Christopher, Z. W. 
Cockey, Wm. 
Camper, Chas. 
Camper, Alexander 
Cadwallader, S. EK. 
Cockey, Edward C. 
Cockey, Thos. 
Courtney, Wm. 
Cline, Geo. H. 
Cook, Frederick 
Cross, Wm. S. 
Cross, E. D. 
Chappeau, Jabez W. 
Curlett, John G. 
Councill, Julius C. 
Cox, Jennings S. 
Covington, John E. 
Curry, Wm. P. 
Coulter, Alexander M. 
Chesbrough, Andron. 
Cunningham, Wm. A. 


AT 


Cathell, Jas. 
Covington, H. 
Crawford, Wm. R. 
Carr, Francis N. 
Crawford, John L. 
Colley, Wm. H. 
Creager, Geo. U. 
Childs, Samuel 
Cook, J. B. 
Coggins, Jas. 
Campbell, John 
Cox, Jas. H. 

Cox, Samuel E. 
Chase, Isaac 
Conoway, Jas. C. 
Cunningham, Patrick 
Cochran, Chas. C. 
Carlisle, Wm. H. 
Cook, Henry F. 
Chappell, Kirshaw 
Colston, F. M. 
Camalier, Vincent 
Cook, G. B. 

Cole, W. R. 

Crook, Walter Jas. 
Cassard, Francis W. 
Cassard, Louis 
Caldwell, Wm. Q. Jr. 
Caldwell, A. P. 
Courtney, David 
Chatard, P. F. 
Chase, Geo. I. 
Cushing, Robert H. 
Coulter, Thos. B. 
Cochran, Samuel 
Cahill, Joseph 
Clarke, Henry 
Cline, Wm. H. 
Clark, Jas. 
Coulson, B. O, 
Cumiskey, C. 
Cruse, John 

Chase, Henry 
Collier, Chas. 
Carland, L. 

Cook, Wm. F. 
Clinton, Thos. L. 
Cunningham, W. W. 
Corbell, H. 
Carrick, Thos. 
Chapman, J. W. 
Carr, S. I. 

Cannon, Jas. Henry 
Cunningham, J. EB. A. 
Cowman, Henry 
Connelly, John H. 
Classen, Henry 
Clark, R. A. 





Cowan, Wm. L. 
Cochran, Samuel H. 
Crawford, Wm. D. 
Crawford, Robert N- 
Cozine, James W. 
Cornthwait, Robt. H. 
Cooper, Jas. 
Connolly, J. Thos. 
Carroll, Patrick 
Cannon, Alex. H. 
Cramblitt, Wm. 
Cook, Lewis E. 
Carmine, Littleton 
Corner, Henry W. 
Curran, Barnard 
Coffin, Chas. 
Cavenaugh, Martin 
Clare, Wm. H. 


D 


Senior Members. 


Dall, Joseph 
Daftin, Benjamin 
DeForges, John P. 
Dushane, V. 
Duncan, H. W. 
Dukehart, Joseph 
Denny, John 
Dailey, John 
Davis, George A. 
Drury, Wm. H. 
Denison, John M. 
Dukehart, John 
Darling, F. Taylor 
Dubrec, G. W. 
Dare, William H. 
Dobler,George 
Diggs, James 
Denison, A. W. 
Dushane, J. W. 
Duvall, W. B. 
Dryden, Joshua 
Dutton, John, 
Dixon, James M. 
Debeet, Duncan H. 
Decorse, William 
Daniels, D. B. 
Day, Wm. S. 
Davidson, William 
Dant, Charles H. 
Danskin, W. A. 
Drummond, Levin 
Day, Alford G. 
Darlington, Howard 
Dunbar, Dr. J. R. W. 


Daffin, R. S. 
Dungan, A. S. 
Darling, James T. 
Dashiell, E. D. 
Davis, W. F. 
Dugan, Cumberland 
Dixon, Robert 
Durens, Mark 
Deitz, J. B. 

Deal, George J. 
Dix, IAT: 
Dushane, N. T. 
Dawes, J. S. 
Daugherty, J. J. 
Devries, William 
Donaldson, John J. 
Doged, Martin 
Downs, John 
Denmead, Talbott 
Davenport. J. B. 
Day, Jacob 
Dowling, Edward 
Denson, Isaac M. 
Davis, John R. 
Dixon, Thomas 
Dawson, Philip T. 
Daniels, Walter 
Dunlap, Charles 
Dunean, Alexander 
Diffenderffr, Henry 
Daiger, Mathias A. 
Done, John H. 
Dorsey, Wm. H. G. 
Dellahay, Edward H. 
Dunham, T. C. 
Duke, A. W. 
Dunean, J. L. 
Dorsett, J. H. 
Davies, Jacob G. 
Dentz, A. C. 
Daugherty, Hugh 


Junior Members. 


Dixon, Jas. Alexander 
Drury, John T. 
Davis Jas. E. 
Deets, Frederick 
Daugherty, J. T. 
Didier, John D. 
Dumbolton, Geo. 
Deale, John Thos. 
Duncan, Ninian 8. 
Duncan, Adam 
Dutrow, E. D. 
Davis, Richard L, 
Dodson, Jobn 








48 


Didier, Eugene L. 
Davis, Wm. H. of M. 
Duvall, Jas. H. 
Davis, W. H. of J. Fy 
Donnelly, F. A. 
Denson, Wm. 
Dailam, Chas. F. 
Dickenson, John, Jr. 
Diggs, Samuel Joseph 
Diggs, Richard H. 
Dunnett, Wm 
Dungan, Wm. W. 
Daugherty, Hugh 
Doyle, Thos. G. 
Dale, Samuel, Jr. 
Devalin, Chas. E. 
Davis, Geo. M. 
Dumont, Alphonso 
Dungan, Henry G. 
Dobson, Wm. H. 
Dutrow, Curtis F. 
Dillehunt, J. T. 
Dorry, John C. 
Dobson, Jas. T. 
Duvall, Wm. Henry 
Devow, Nicholas 
Dohning, Edward 
Daffin, Francis 
Davenport, Thos. T. 
Delcher, Jas. A. 
Diggs, Edward G. 
Dexter, Cuas. 
Dryden, Wm. H. 
Davis, Edward R. 
Daughaday, John 
Durand, Thos. W. 
Dashiells, J. B. 
Dutton, John R. 
Diggs, Beverly 

Day, Samuel G. 
Dittman, Chas. W. 
Delaney, Wm, 
Duvall, John H. Jr. 
Dungan, H. 8. 
Diffenderffer, Geo. M. 
Dunan, Theodore 
Dittman, Edward F, 
DeRanceray, Lewis 
Davidson, ‘I’. H. 
Dalton, J. Mathew. 
Davis, L. B. 
Dallam, Thos. M. 
Danskin, W. A. Jr. | 
Deal, Wm. C. 
Dewling, Asbury 
Decker, John W. 
Dennison, Henry C. 
Daiger, Charles H. 
Dunean, G. 








Dewling, Isaiah 
Dunn, Charles 
Dunn, James 
Dawson, John 
Donohue, L. 

Dunn, Joseph 
Dowling, James L. 
Dougherty, William 
Denmead, B. F. 
Dunlap, Chas. L. | 
Duvall, Edward 
Delano, Philip 
Dowling, Michael 
Dodson, William 
Daiger, Wm. H. 
Dashiell, Wm. O. 
Denmead, Edward. 
Dukehart, Wm, B. 
Dillon, L. C. 
Doize, Lucian 
Daiger, Edward 
Dell, John E. 
Daws, Henry _ 
Dohme, Lewis 


= 
Senior. Members. 


Ellicott, Wm. M, 
Eldrige, Robert 
Eareckson, Thos. B. 
Eames, Nathaniel 
Emerick, William H. 
Elliott, H. A. 
Emory, Charles M. 
Eastman, J. S. 
Eareckson, Chs. C. 
Emory, Samnel 
Evans, Join H. 
Ebaugh, Henry 

Ely, John N, 
Edmonson, J. 
Eareckson, V. O. 
Evitt, Robert 
Emory, D. C. H. 
Emory, A. 

Ellis, Thomas 
Emory, John B. 
Ebaugh, David 
Eichelberger, E.. M. 
Emich, David 
Ehrman, George M. 
E\licott, Evan 7. : 
Eiseubrant, C. H. 
Ellicott, Benjaman H. 
Evans, George 
Etchburger, John F. 


Essender, Dr. James 
Emory, Wm. H. 


Edmundson, Dr. Thos. 


Egerton, Chas. C. 
Ellis, W. H. 


Junior Members. 


Evans, Richard B. 
Etchberger, Jas. S. 
Emich, Columbus V. 
Eliason, John A. 
Evatt, William J. 
Eimer, William 
Elliott, William 
Elliott, Edward 
Eastman, Lewis M. 
Eastman, H. William 
Evans, Charles W. 
Ely, John B. 
Emmart, P. T. 
Emory, John K. B. 
Elliott, Wm. H. 
Eareckson, J. R. 
Hichelberger, S. E. 
Eborall, Friedrick 
Ely, J. Benj. 
Edmunds, W. E. 
Eareckson, Chas. F. 
Evatt, Francis B. 
Elmore, Chas. A. Jr., 
Elliott, John T. 
Ebbert, O. A. 
Egerton, Wm. A. 
Ehlen, George W. 
Edgar, John 
Emmart, W. W. 
Enright, Francis 
Easter, G. W. 
Early, John D. 
Erwin, John M. 
Eyans, Evan 
Everhart, Wm. H. 
Kssert, George 
Emmart, John M. 
Ely, 8. S. 


es 
Senior Members. 


Fairbank, W. J. 
Forsyth, David J, 
Fowler, Francis 
Fusselbaugh, John 8. 
Field, A. W. 
Fenhagen, James C. 
Farringer, Chries 
Ferguson, John H. 
Fowler, John W. 


4 





» A9 


Frick, E. A. 
Flaherty, Wm. 
Furlong, William G, 
Fowler, J. E. 
Fowble, Abraham 
Farber, Henry J. 
Fairbank, Charles 
Forster, D. KX. 
Friend, Alfred 
Floyd, William 
Fahnestock, G. W. 
Fonder, Richard 
Fahnestock, Edward 
Forster, William 
Friend, John 
Forrest, Alexander 
Focke, Edward L. 
Fonerdon, Dr. J. 
Filbert, J. A. 
Fulton, L. 
Fitzpatrick, J. G. 
Forman, Henry 
Fales, George E. 
Farquarharson, F. L. 
Fales, N. D. 
Furlong, John 
Fulton, James 
Flack, G. W. 
Floss, William 
Ferandini, C. 

Fox, H. E. 
French, Andrew 
Frank, Austin 
Fardy, John T. 
France, Col. Richard 
Foy, James 

Falls, R. W. 
Ferguson, William 
Fraley, Lecnard 
Foreman, Valentine 
Farringer, Francis 
Fitzgerald, Henry 
Forbes, James 8. 
Ford, R. K. 

Funk, J. W. 


Junior Members. 


Forrester, James F. 
Forrester, Robert 
Forrest, Theophilus 
Forrester, Benj. F. 
Forrest, John 

Frist, William 
Fairbank, Thomas J. 
Flack, J. S. O. 
Flack, Thomas J. 
Fisher, Thomas N. 
France, Ambrose M. 





Fay, George 

Folk, Robert 
Fuller, J. W. 
Fisher, Reuben 
Fuller, Joseph H. 
Foster, James W. 
Freeman, John 
Fitzpatrick, Andrew 
Frederick, Geo. W. 
Fisher, John A. 
Frost, Charles M. 
Freeland, Edwd. H. 
Fledderman, H. G. 
Folks, George 
Flinn, Danl. F. 
Frush, C. W. 

Fay, Charles 
Fuller, C. F. 
Frazier, Anthony 
Frazier, David R. 
Farnum, G. W. 
Ferrell, Joshua 
Forman, Jesse C. 
Foy, R. H. 
Forsyth, Alexander 
Foster, John C. 
Forsyth, Edwd. §. 
Ferguson, David 
Ferguson, Hugh 
Frank, William G. 
Franklin, S. L. 
Frederick, William 
Fuller, James 
Forney, M. M. 
Ford, John D. 
Fowler, J. J. 
Fishack, John 
Fulton, T. H. 
Fulton, Charles 
Fisher, Chas. H. 
Flaugherty, Morgan 
Farsen, G. W. 
Freeland, George T. 
Fieldhouse, Chas. 
Fisher, James H. 
Fleckeitine, E. Julius 
Fulton, Albert K. 
Fluharty, Wm. R. 
Fisher, Frederick 
Foy, James H. 
Fersuson, Joseph 
Francis, Wm. 
Floyd, J. F. 
Frames, George A. 


G 
Senior Members. 
Gosnell, L. G. 


» Gaddess, Thomas A. 
Griffin, Robert 
Gault, Mathew 


Giles, Hon. Wm. Fell 


Grogan, Michael 
Griffith, Wm. A. 
Grafflin, Joseph 
Green, Thos. M. 
Green, Geo. W. 
Griffith, B. L. 
Goodman, Thos. S. 
Gibbons, Wm. H. 
Grover, Chas. G. 
Graham, John of D. 
Gambrill, H. N. 
Gardner, Alfred S, 
Green, Joseph D. 
Griffith, Wm. 
Gilpin, Edwd. C, 
Goodrich, Henry 
Gootee, Geo. S. 
Gorsuch, Jehu 
Grove, Francis 
Greenfield, A. H. 
Gibson, R. F. 
Gale, Thomas M. 
Grinnell, C. A. 
Getty, Robert 
Glenn, S 

Gibson, James 
Gates, Ezra 
Griffin, Elias T. 
George, James 
Gault, Cyrus 
Gittings, James 
Guest, Saml. 
Guy, Moses 
Gallibart, Joseph R. 
Gott, J.C. 
Gorsuch, Wm. G. 
Gunther, Conrad 
Griffith, G. S. 
Green, Amon 
Gregory, Joseph 
Gromley, John 
Gebhart, John 
Glanville, W. A. 
Gray, R. W. 
Graham, John 
Gilbert, L. Y. 
Grape, Jacob 
Gardner, James 
Grugan, John 
Groverman, A. 
Graham, H. H. 
Gould, James A. 
Gogel, C. C. 
Graham, Wm. 


50 


4 


Gunnison, Wm. 
Graham, Andrew 
Getty, D. Augustus 
Gover, Gerard 
Glocker, Theodore 
Gelbach, Geo. Jr., 
Green, H. H. 
Gatch, Conduce 
Gaskins, Saml. 8. 
George, John B. 
Grafton, McHenry 
Godey, Thos. 
Gibbs, James W. 
Giese, J. Henry 
Gill, Geo. M. 
Golder, Jas. C. 
Gill, Jabez 

Gable, John 
Grice, Edwd. L. 
Gill, Noah 
Gilpin, Thos. H. 
Getty, James 
Gosnell, Philip H. 
Griffiss, T. J. 


Gillingham, Geo. H. 


Griffin, Thos. L. 
Glanville, J. W. 
Green, Chas. B. 
Gore, John W. 
Glien, Anthony 
Guest, J. Wesley 
Gibson, George 
Grafflin, J. C. 
Gehrman, James 
Grafton, H. 
Gray, Thomas 


Junior Members. 


Galloway, Wm. 
Gordon, Chas. M. 
Gilman, John 
Goldstone, Jacob 
Gordon, Thos. G. 
Griest, George 
Guy, Robt. J. 
Gill, Riend. C. 
Griffith, Wm. F. 
Gallagher, Alex. 
Gillingham, E. N. 
Garvey, Wm. P. 
Gill, Chas. M. 
Gil), Saml. H. 
Girvin, Henry 8S. 
Girvin, Wm. G. 
Gaehle, Henry 
Gosnell, Philip H. 
Greeves, David F. 


Gaehle, Lewis 
Griffith, G. S. Jr. 
Gerding, Lewis 
George, John M. 
Gordon, W. Edwin 
Guyton, B. Franklin 
Green, Geo. T. 
Gawthrop, Jas. T. 
Gosnell, Oliver T. 
Green, David N. 
Gwyn, Chas. L. 
Gatley, John 
Gesford, John 
Graham, W. J. 
Graham, E. C. 
Griggs, John J. 
Galloway, Wm. A 
Gaddess, Chas. W. 
Gwyn, J. T. 

Gray, E. Jr. 
Graham, J. T. 
Guenste, Frederick 
Gatch, Chas. H. 
George, Thos. J. 
Gale, Joseph 
Gibson, G. Eugene 
Gover, Saml. H. 
Greenwood, W. D. 
Gettier, Edwd. P. 
Gardner, George 
Galloway, Jesse 
Guyton, Chas. T. 
Grier, John A. 
Guyton, Wm. L. 
Gischel, Conrad H. 
Gorsuch, Wm. S. 
Greenfelder, Moses Jr. 
Graham, J. R. H. 
Gardner, Wm. G. 
Gilcrist, Alexander 
Gemeny, Benj. 
Greer, Alexander 
Gifford, Wm. 
Gengnagel, Jacob 
Granger, Geo. R. 
Gieger, Charles 
Gary, James A. 
Gracy, Benj. M. 
Gaston, Henry 
Gassaway, H. P. 
Goodwin, T. E. 
Gunnison, Wm. H. 
Gray, William 
Gray, Harry C. 
Gallup, Thomas 
Gallup, John 
Gross, J. J. 
Gambrill, John W. 


Griffin, H. C. 
Grubb, Samuel 
Grann, George 
Garrett, James H. 
Griffin, Robt. B. Jr. 
Gault, Albert 
Green, Wm. H. 
Grant, James B. 
Gorsuch, Theodore 
Gaynor, John 
Gordon, Saml. B. 
Gaddess, V. 
Goodman, John 


H 
Senior Members. 


Hill, Wm. B. 
Holloway, Edward 
Hunt, G. H. 

Harris, J. Morrison 
Harrison, Wm. G. 
Hooper, Augustus D. 
Hall) Li besrc: 
Harrison, Wm. N. 
Hollins, C D. 
Holtzman, John D. 


Hildebrandt, Chas. H. 


Houlton, ‘thos. T. 
Hiss, C. D. 
Haswell, John 
Hyam, Abram 
Hughes, Thos. L. 
Hammontree, H. C. 
Haslup, Levi S. 
Hoge, Wm. 
Holland, Jackson 
Hank, J. B. P. 
House, Samuel A. 
Hull, Wm. 

Hiser, H. W. 
Hopper, T. Wright 
Herzog, John 
Hughes, J. T. 
Hindes, Moses G. 
Hudkinson, John M. 
Hollins, J. Smith 
Hess, Dr. Frederick 
Hays, Robert 
Hutzler, Moses 
Hayward, Ely B. 
Hoen, E. 

Holloway, Chas. T. 
Hartt, Hy. N. 
Hinkley, Willard H. 
Hann, Jas. H. 
Hooper, Robert 
Haine, B. F. 





51 


Henderson, Jas. 
Harvey, John H. 
Hay, Jas. 
Hansall, Philip 
Hardesty, John E. 
Hatch, Jas. G. 
Harrison, B. H. 
Hopkins, C. J. R. 
Hunt, John W. 
Hahn, Chas. 
Hart, Samuel 
Henly, David 
Hayden, Geo. K. 
Hart, Wm. W. 


Heiner, Revd. Dr. E. 


Hooper, Chas. H. 
Holmes, R. S. 
Horn, Matthew 
Harris, Wm. 
Hunter, S. Hillen 
Halls, John 
Hickman, Gen. N. 
Hall, Geo. H. M. 
Hibbard, Israel 
Hogg, Jas. H. 
Holloway, John M. 
Holland, Geo. W. 
Hartman, Isaac P. 
Hollins, Robert S. 
Henderson, Richard 
Hopkins, Wm. 
Harrison, Z. G. 
Harrison, Robert G. 
Hauser, Jacob R, 
Hook, R. W. 
Hamill, Jas. H. 
Haslup, Rezin 
Herring, D. Jr. 
Hoss, John F. 
Hays, Edward F. 
Hooper, Jas. 


Humerickhouse, C.W. 


Harrison, N.S. 
Holthause, F. T. 
Hays, Samuel J. 
Hambleion, Thos. B. 
Hunt, Jesse 
Hindes, Samuel 
Hosie. Robert 
Hale, Joseph A. 
Heizell, John G. 
Hoke, Henry. 
Hambleton, T. E. 
Harrison, Jas. C. 
Hazlehurst, H. R. 
Holland, John C. 
Hindman, Wm. 
Hawley, R. K, 


Herzog, Valentine 
Howard, Wm. 
Heuisler, John F. 
Henniberger, Wm. 
Hawley, Martin 
Holden, Thos. T. Jr. 
Hennel, Philip 
Harlan, Lewis G. 
Henderson, Jas. H. 
Hopkins, John L. 
Hodgkinson, John M. 
Harris, Jas. H. 
Hill, Dr. Joseph H. 
Hergberg, Philip 
Hall, Richard 
Hartshorne, Joshua 
Hull, Robert 
Hinsley, John 
Helm, John F. 
Hooper, J. P. 
Hendrickson, S. W. 
Heuisler, Geo. A. 


Junior Members. 


Hoopes, Wm. P. 
Herrlich, Wm. 
Hackesley, Geo. W. 
Hoover, Francis W. 
Henderson, John 
Higby, Theodore 
Huster, W. W. 
Hill, Thos. 
Hoopman, Chritian A. 
Husband, Jacob L. 
Hooper, Wm. J. 
Hayden, Horace E. 
Hoffman, John M. 
Hershey, David B. 
Husband, Albert 
Hogg, Jas. D. 
Hindes, Joseph F. 
Hulls, Robert F. 
Herold, Chas. F. 
Hanna, Jas. 
Hoffman, Lewis 
Hurst, J. E. 
Harrison, Chas. S, 
Holtzman, E. K. 
High, John W. 
Hanna, Alexander B. 
Haurande, Ker. Jr. 
Haurande, Wm. 
Hill, Geo. 

Helsby, Thos. H. 
Hedian, Thos. 
Hopkins, Joseph 


Henrix, Chas. 
Henrix, Edward 
Hurley, Timothy 
Hayden, M. M. 
Haslup, G. H. 
Hutzler, Abram 
Hess, John 
Hepperla, Henry 
Hipsley, Joshua E. 
Hollingshead, Geo. 
Harrison, Jas. 
Hogg, Egenton 
Houston, Daniel B. 
Horn, Philip 

Hale, Geo. E. F. 


Holtzman, Henry C. 


Harman, Martin 


Holloway, Edwin E. 


Hoopes, Wm. H. 
Hess, Chas. B. 


Heilbrun, Joseph M. 


Hugg, John H. 
Hall, Wm. H. 
Handley, Wm. H. 
Hooper, Theodore 
Hobbs, Thos. 
Hook, Edwin 
Holloway, Geo. N. 
High, W. G. 
Hillard, Otis K. 
Harback, Stephen 
Hooper, Jas. E. 
Heverin, Jas. N. 
Hughes, Thos. S. 
Hatcheson, Jas. 
Hagger, Chas. 
Hampson, Jas. S. 
Hale, Wesley 
Hiss, Wm. J. 
Hecht, Bernard 
Hess, Emery 
Harris, H. Going 
Hollins, Thos. 
Harwood, E. O. 
Hawser, G. S. 


Hollingsworth, Geo. 


Hart, Chas. T. 
Hollins, John 
Houlton, Samuel C. 
Hull, Jb Je 


Huntemuller, H. W. 


Hedderman, Henry 
Hoffman, Chas. 
Harrison, John W. 
Holton, Wm. 
Hooper, Robert, Jr. 
Hasson, John M. 
Hopkins, Wm. L. 





52 


Hoffman, Wm. H. 
Hay, John C. 


Hendrickson, Geo. O. 


Harrison, Thos. 
Hopkins, Samuel 
Happerla, Wm. 
Hunt, M. 

Hardesty, Thos. H. 
Hays, Jas. H. 
Holmes, A. S. 
Holmes, John 
Harrington, J. P. 
Hopkins, Samuel B. 
Henderson, John, Jr. 
Hamman, Michael 
Heagy, John 
Holbrook, Martin 
Healy, Jas. 


Hildebrand, Henry K. 


Holland, O. P. 
Hutchings, Jas. A. 
Hyde, Jas. J. M. 
Harrison, Wm. 
Haughton, Thos. B. 
Hollingsworth, Rd. 
Heiner, J. Z. 

Hull, Henry 

Hale, David D. 
Harding, Luther O. 
Hughes, Samuel 
Henderson, Samuel 
Harney, Henry 
Habberset, J. B. 
Herring, Joseph E. 
Hiskey, J 

Haneock, Francis M. 
Hysan, Wm. 
Hooper, Chas. V. 
Hindes, Jas. 
Hardesty, Wm. E. 
Harrison, Wm. H. 
Hampton, Wm. D. 
Hall, Thos. 
Hartman, Geo. F. 
Hamilton, Francis 
Harman, John A. 
House, John A. 
Hart, Manly M. 
Hannah, Hugh Bell 
Hall, Fenwick 
Hampton, John A. 
Hughes, Chas. 
Hall, T..W. Jr. 
Harrington, D. B. 
Horner, John 
Herzog, Maxmillian. 
Hamilton, Geo. 
Hurst, Wm. R. 


Holland, Wm. 
Hichew, John D. 
Hall, Hichard H. Jr. 
Hanlin, Patrick 
Holland, Robert 
Hindes, Samuel, Jr. 
Hamer, Daniel W. 
Hurst, John T. 
Howard, Wm. G. 
Hooper, Wm. 
Hall, W. E. 
Huppmann, J. J. 
Hanks, Wm. H. 
Harris, C. 


Senior Members. 


Jackson, W. R. 
Jenkins, J. S. 
Irving, Thos. J. 
Johnson, J. W. 
Ijams, John 
Jackson, James 
Jones, Atriah 
Israel, Edward 
Ijams, John P. 
Johnston, Wm. 
Jerome, John H. T. 
Johnson, Philip Jr. 
Jones, Hugh B. 
Jack, Charles E. 
Jones, Thomas 
Jones, John 

Ives, Wm. M. 
Jillard, Wm H. 
Johnson, Wm. R, | 
Jones, Robt. H. 
Jeffreys, Thos. R. 
Jenkins, H. Jr. 
Jordon, J. B. 
Ijams, G. P, 
Jaiger, Wm. G. W. 
Jones, J. C,. 
Jarvis, R. B. 
Jackson, James M. 
Jacobs, James P. 
Johnson, James 
Jenkins, Henry W. 
Jones, Isaac S. 
Johnson, Wm. M. 
Jarrett, L. 

James, Thomas 
Jackson, Jas. R. 
Jarboe, Rey. J. R. 
Jansley, Thos. 
Jacobs, James M. 
Ing, John H. 


Jenkins, Jas. W. 
Johnson, Wm. Jr. 
Irons, Emanuel 
Irvin, John A. 
Jarrett, Henry C. 
Jennings, John W. 
Ing, Charles 
Johnson, G. W. 
Jones, D. H. 
Jenkins, John W. 


Junior Members. 


Jones, C. C. 
Joyes, Edward C. 
Judefind, John W. 
Jones, Lewis R. 
Johnson, Wm. 
Jones, Wm. 
Johnson, Charles 
Jenkins, A. P.! 
Jean, William 
. Jones, C. R. 
Jennings, Saml. T. 
Jones, O. B. 
Johnson, Wm. of E. 
Johnson, Geo. W. 
Johnson, Grafton 
Ives, John A. 
Johnson, Joseph 
frons, William 
James, William 
James, Levi Jr.. 
Jones, S. 
Ingraham, J. S. 
Jordon, Wm. H. 
Irvine, A. M. 
Jones, F. W. 
Jones, Albert 
Jamison, John 
Isaacs, C. 
Jordon, John R. 
Janney, W. W. 
Jones, Charles 
James, John A. R. 
Janney, Sam]. A. 
Jackson, James F’. 
Jones, James E. 
Jung, Wm. L. 
Johnston, Oscar D. 


Senior Members. 


Kelly, Joseph D. 
Knox, John D. 
Kerr, Wm. 
Kessler, John S. 
Keys, Benj. C. 
Kimberly, Wm. H. 





| 


53 


Killen, Wm. H. 
Kilmer, Henry J. 
Kelso, Thomas 
Kelso, John Thos. 
Keighler, Wm. H. 
Klunk, Francis A. 
King, F. W. 
Kennedy, John 
Krebs, Henry W. 
Krebs, John W. 
Kramm, Ephraim 
Kilburn, Uri 

Kerr, Robert 
Kennard, Battis H. 
Kemp, Dr. Wm. M 
Kennard, W. H. 
Kinnaird, Alexander 
Kemp, Joseph F. 
Kellinger, W. J. 
Kobe Wide 
King, Joseph Jr. 
Knotts, J. Hanson 
Kuhn, John J. 


Keener, Dr. Wm. H. 


Kroeson, Isaiah 
Kennedy, Wm. W. 
Kridler, Jacob F. 
Kennard, G. J. 
Krebs, Wm. 
Kernan, Edward 
Keirle, Henry 
Klinefelter, Jesse 
Klinefelter, O. D. 
Knighton, Thos. 
Keener, Chas. H. 
King, Glendy 
Kane, Geo. P. 
Kalbfus, Daniel 
Kries, G. W. 
Klare, John B. 
Kirker, John 
Kahlert, Henry 
King, C. B. 
Krebs, JamesW. 
King, C. P. 
Kellenberger, Jas. 
Kimberly, J. M. 
Kuhn, Robert M. 


Junior Members. 
Kugler, Thos. H. 


Kimberly, Henry E. 
Kelly, Washington 


Knowles, Geo. G. Jr. 


Kiersted, A. J. 
Kretzer, C. E. 
Kaine, Thomas 
Kreis, Henry 





Krus, Henry 
Kennedy, John H. 
Kochlings, Chas. W. 
Koffenberger, Henry 
Keen, Wm. R. 
Kremer, John T. 
Knotts, John W. 
Knipp, Jacob, Jr 
Knipp, Christian 
Knipe, Benj. F. 
Kennedy, lsaac 
Kidd, James R. 
Kirk, Saml. E. 
Kirby, George C. 
Kleinfelter, Van Vert 
Kleinfelter, Gartman 
Kemp, Edward L. 
Knighton, Wm. T. 
King, Wailace 
Knickman, Henry 
Keene, John H. Jr. 
Kemp, 8S. J. 
Keighler, J. C. 
Keighler, Saml. A. 
Keighler, W. H. Jr. 
King, Chas. T. 
Kirk, Robt. E. 
Keenan, Jas. E. 
Kerner, Jobn H. 
King, Andrew J. 
Kerr, Robt. J. 
Kiersted, Geo. 
King, Thos. H. 
King, T. F. 
Kirkland O. 

Krems, Joseph F. 
Kaylor, Thomas 
Kirby, C. L. 
Knight, Hewiti 
Kellum, Chas. L. 
Kemper, Wm. 
Kimberly, J. M. 
Knabe, Ernest 
Krebs, George 
Krebs, Henry 
Kemp, Wm. H. 
Knight, John C. 
Kirk, Wm. 

Kirk, Charles 

Kirk, Edward C. 
Kemp, Richard Jr, 
Koppelman, John G. 
Kline, Francis M. 
Keen, Edward S. 
Kenley, Wm. L. 
Knell, Henry 
Kraft, Chas. O. 
Kuhne, Augustus 


Killen, Mathew 
Kraft, Fredk. A. 
Keene, Benj. R. 
Kubach, Chas. D. 


Senior Members. 


Leslie, Capt. Robert 
Leonard, Amasa 
Lester, Samuel T. 
Lefavre, Wm. H. 
Lamb, F. F. 
Longbottom, Abram 
Lawson, Jas. of S. 
Levering, A. J. 
Lambdin, Thos, J. 
Leeke, \\m. H. 
Loney, Robert W. 
Larrabee, H. C. 
Larrabee, Edwd. W. 
Laws, J. Thompson 
Lee, John W. 
Long, Richard D. 
Lansdale, J. W. F. 
Lehmann, Robert 
Lansdale, R. V. 
Lapouraille, A. P. 
Littig, Philip 
Lovejoy, Samuel 
Luteas, Chas. Z. 
Levering, Thos. L. 
Loane, J. W. 
Loane, Joseph G. 
Lawndes, James 
Lusby, E. R. 
Leakin, Andrew 
Lantz, Oliver F. 
Lockie, John 
Linthicum, W. O. 
Lambden, Wm.W. 
Lehmayer, S. 
Larmour, Wm. B. 
Lee, Wm. M. 7 
Lefflar, Geo. H. R. 
Lee, Jas. F. 

Lamb, Thos. P. 
Linch, John S. 
Lohse, Wm. H. 
Lohse, Chas. A. 
Lycett, Geo. 
Lamping, Wm. 
Lueas, Jas. 
Lambert, Edward 
Leffler, D. S. 
Lester, Thos. 
Lambdin, Edwd. S. 
Lewis, Stephen 
Lewis, Martin 





54 
Lyon, John H. 
Lyon, C. H. 
Lawton, John L. 
Lloyd, B. Rush 
Latrobe, Benjamin H. 
Laidlow, John 
Lucas, Fielding, Jr. 
Lovegrove, Jas. 
Logan, Jas. H. 
Laning Wm. M. 
Lynch, John S. 
Lawson, Jas. of R. 
Lowndes, Jas. 
Lambdin, John 
Leonard, Wm, 
Lucas, Wm. 
Lamb, Geo. M. 
Lentz, C. W. 
Lannay, Lewis F., 
Lansdale, Francis A. 


Junior Members. 


Lovering, Francis J. 
Lare, Geo. H 
Lare, D W. 
Lidiard, Bernard A. 
Lester, David H. 
Littig, John M. 
Linderman, Chas. W. 
Linderman, Conrad 
Lepper, Chas. 
Lawson, Stephen A. 
Leef, John G. 
Lynch, Joseph Wm. 
Lafaivre, F. 
Lingenfelder, Louis 
Lewis, Joseph N. Jr. 
Lester, Joseph W. 
Lackey, Wm. 
Lewis, P. S. 
Leetch, John 
Larrabee, E. W. Jr. 
Larrabee, E M. 
Larrabee, Geo. G. 
Lambden, Joseph 
Loane, Edwin D. 
Lutts, Chas. G. 
Lefevre, J. W. 
Littig, N. B. 
Longley, Samuel T. 
Long, Thos. W. 
Larrabee, W. F. 
Larrabee, E. F. 
Lowndes, J. A, 
Lowndes, C. G. 
Letournau, F. W. W. 
Lamb, Jas 

Lawson, John T. 





| 


Larkin, A: J. B. 
Littig, A. W. 

Lee, R. C. 

Lyons, Wm. 
Lybrand, Geo. H. 
Lilly, Andrew 
Lilly, Wm. 

Lloyd, Wm. H. . 
Lovejoy, Henry 
Lee, Jesse W. Jr. 
League, T. J. 
Lewis, M. H. 
Linniweaver, Geo W. 
Leef, Wm. 4 
Lampley, N. Lewis 
Luckett, C. W. 
Lovejoy, Wm. H. 
Lemmon, Wm. 
Long, John 

Love, Wm. E. 
Lindsey, Benjamin 
Long, E. P 
Levering, P. R. 
Lewis, Wm. M. 
Lamdin, Wm. M. 
Litzinger, Thomas 
Levering, Thos. H. 
Lloyd, Thos. M. 
Lowry, Henry P. 
List, Jacob _ 
Lemmon, Wm. S. 
Lee, John H. 
Lipscomb, John D. 


Senior Members. 


McCeney, J. C, 
McCausland, W. J. 
Miller, Wm. H. 
Magill, P. H. 

May, Edward 
McNeal, George 
Montgomery, Jas. 
McComas, N. A. 
Maxwell, John 
Mann, Ernest’ 
Montgomery, Wm. S. 
Moore, J. Faris 
Magraw, Thos. E. 
Morrison, Jas. 
McAllister, Jas. H. 
Moore, Edward 
McCartney, Daniel 
Mackenzie, Geo, W. 
Mann, Wm. 
Mitchell, Edward 
Muller, Dr. J. R. 
McNabb, Jas: 


Mathoson, John 
McCymont, Wm. Jr. 
McCymont, Wm. 
Moon, Edward H. 
McCulloh, Wm. J. 
McComas, Jas. M. 
Massie, Dr. Wm. R. 
Morse, ‘hos. W. 
Miller, Enoch 
Matthews, T. R. Jr. 
Muller, Philip H. 
Markland, Wm. W. 
Merritt, Jacob 
McCafiry, T. 
Morgan, E. J. 
McShane, Henry 
McAllister, Richard 
McWilliams, D. J. 
Mace, C. V. 
MacPherson, Samuel 
Mellvain, Wm. 
Miles, Richard D. 
Millis, Laertis O. 
Malloy, John 

May, Wm. H. 
Martin, David 
Miller, Lewis 
Matthews, Joseph 
Manahan, J. F. 
Moore, Daniel M. 
Miller, A. H. 
Milborn, R N. 
Mohler, Edward 
Martin, D, A. 
Marshall, Thos. B. 
McCann, Edward 
Maygers, Rd. R. 
Muller, Jas. N. 
Marley, Richard 
Millholland, R. D. 
Macomber, Gideon 
Mathews Samuel H. 
Morgan, Dr. G. E. 
McNeal, Lloyd 
Marston Joseph R. 
Marston, S. W. 
Miller, John F 
Martin, Samuel 
Matthew, E. L. 
Miller, Wm. J. 
Murray, Jas. 
Murray, Wm. J. 
Mahaney, John 
Moore, Wm. W. 
Mullen, Wm H. 
Marden, Jesse 
Magill, R. G. 
McCandless, Geo. S. 


55 


MacNeal, A. L. 
McClernon, John 
Montague, D. P. 
Miller, Wm. Hof W. 
Murray, Jas. 
Morris, Chas. T. 
Markland, Wm. T. 
Mylander, Henry 
McMachen, John 
McEldery, Hugh 
Mason; Wm. Jr. 
Maslin, Thos. J. 
Myers, John W. 
McCay, Jas. G. 
Miller, John H. 
McCourt, Arthur 
Mathiot, A. 
McMullen, John 
Morrison, H. 
Mills, Samuel S. 
Merrill, J. H. 
Merriman, Dr. G. 
McKim, John S. 
McHenry, Wm. 
Murdoch, Chas. 
Matthews, A. C. 
Murdoch, Richard 
McLean, Arthur J. 





- Moody, John B. 


McKim, Haslett 
Miller, Wm. 
Morris, J. T. 
McClellan, J.S. 
Maffei, Angelo 
Medcalf, Vhas. 
Morton, Washington 
Macall, Dr. 

Moran, Dr. John J. 
Marshall, Henry 
Mercer, Chas. H. 
Mankin, Henry 
Muller, Louis 
MeDonald, Alexander 
Mince, David 
Martin, W. E. 
Matthews, John 
McCullough, J. A. 
McLear, Philip 
Martin, John W. 
McCreary, Wm. B. 
Matthews, R. S. 
Merritt, Geo. A. 
Martin, T. H. 
McKim, Wm. 
Mathiot, Augustus B. 
Metz, Richard A. 
McKew, E. J. 
Martin, T. H. 














Merchant, Joseph A. 
Maughlin, Wm. W. 
Martin, John 
Musser, Wm. R. 
Mitchell, E. T. 
Martin, John J. 
Mathers, Jas. 
McDonald, C. S. 
Martin, Thos. H. 
McClellan, Wm. W. 
McPhail, William 
McMillen, Geo. G. 
Montgomery, Samuel 
Millholland, John G. 
Milnor, John P. Jr. 
Moke, George W. 
McHenry, James 
Milliken, James 
Mankin, Rinaldo T. 
Matthews, Thomas J. 
Moore, John H. 
Munroe, D. 8. 
Meacham, Randall 


Junior Members. 


McCaddin, Andrew 
McLaughlin, Charles 
Myers, A. M. 
McAllister, James 
McCahan, Davis 
Murphy, Wm. S. 
McCaddin, J. F. 
Merritt, George W. 
Morrow, John H. 
Moir, James 

Miller, Jacob Henry 
Moulton, J. Duhamel 
MeJilton, W. D. 
McCornica, James D. 
Moore, George W. 
Manro, Wm. E. 
Manro, Rd. W. 
Morrison, H. W. F. 
Moore, R. T. 
McFee, Wm. 
Marriott, Geo. H. M. 
Michael, Jas. H. 
Meakin, Nathaniel 
Morrow, Robert G. 
May, E. Ferdinand 
Mettee, Leonard 
McBride, D. H. 
McClymont, Alex. 
Moore, John 
McPhail, Wm. L. 
Michael, Lewis D. 
McCollam, Daniel 





Martin, Henry T. 
MeNally, Henry 
Mulliken, Chas. E. 
Myer, Frederick 
Makibbin, Thos. A. 
Maitland, B. Jr 
Morling, FL. 
McClenahan, Robert 
Metzger, Franklin 
Mitchell, John J. 
McBride, Henry 
McCurley, Isaac 
Mowbray, James H. 
Myers, John 
Magers, Juhn M. 
Moffitt, Edwin W. 
Myer, C. A. 
McClintock, John A. 
Mitchell, A. David 
Mortimer, E. L. 
Martin, George A. 
Meads, J. H. 
Mitchell, Wm. 
Maitland, Burgin 


Millholland, Thos. T. 


McKenna, James 
Maynard, G. W. 
Mass, E. A. 
Manson, John 
Mitchell, James T. 
Mitchell, R. M. 
Mabel, Wm. F. 
Maloney, James 
Miller, George W. 
Moxley Thomas D. 
Murphy, Francis P. 


McKeever, James B. 


Myers, Daniel A. 
McLennen, W. F. 
Maidwell, Wm. H, 
Miller, Wm. H. 
Moreton, Alfred 
Miller, Edward J. 
Miller, Benjamin F, 
Maffei, Angelo 
Mason, Wm. A. 
Milliken, Wm. H. 
Miller, Adolphus H. 
Mott, James, Jr. 
Murray, Wm. 
Mason, Thos. M. 
McComas J. L. 
Maughlin, James 
Most, John T. 
Miles, H. C. 
Mattingly, John F. 
Miller, David R. 
Miles, Charles M. 





56 


Miller, William C. 
McLaughlin, Daniel 
Mitchell, Thomas J. 
Medinger, H. G. 
McMillan, Wm. D. 
Minifie, Wm Ernest 
McKewen, T. F. 
Major, John R. 
Mitchell, Alexander 
McKewen, Thomas 
McKubbin, Wm. L. 
McWilliams, John 
McGreoy, Solomon 
Morton, George C. 
McManus, Daniel 
Merriken, Francis M. 
Moss, Livingston 
Maguire, J. L. 
Mayer, James 
McClure, Wm. 
Moody, Wm. 
McCleery, R. W. 
Martin, Luther R, 
McGraw, J R. 
Michael, Augustus 
Morris, Levin 
Milburn, John . 
Mansfield, James T. 
Miller, Jolin 
Maxwell, David 
McGarretty, B. W. 
McGee, J. W. 
Muirhead, Wm. 
McClintock, John 
Middlemore, Saml. S. 
McOahan, G L. 
Murray, Edward 
Milborn, James R. 
Mathew, Richard J. 
McDonald, D. H. 
Moreland, George 
Mitchell, John N. 
Mathews, Hinckle 
Marcellus, C. M. W. 
Maulsby, P. H. 
Muller, James N. Jr, 
McCartney, R. BH. 
Mason, Charles H, 
Mortimer, George E, 
Magruder, R. 
Miller, Edward D. 
Martin, R. T. 
Mason, Henry 

McE roy, M. 

Moltz, Henry 
McElroy, Wm. D. 
Marden, Jesse, Jr. 
Marden, George W. 











Maxwell, Wm. 
Mathews, Thomas 
Myers, Augustus G. 
Meredith, Daniel 
Mattison, S. J. 
Morrison James H. 
McLaughlin, George 
Miller, Allen 
McCauley, William 
Morrison, L. 
McAleer, Charles 
Mass, William 
McKewen, Francis 
Morse A. C. 
Merryman, Henry N. 
McBriety, Wm. G. 
McManus, Felix S. 
McCaffray, Henry 
McCaffray, George 
Mayer, Alfred M. 
Mattingly, Joseph A. 
MeDonaid, James 
McLean, Thomas B, 
Moale, Frederick 
McSherry, James W. 
Merker, Wm. A. 
Miller, John M. 
McClenahan, J. M. 
McLaughlin, Andrew 
McCarty, Patrick 
McCoy, Wm. E. S. 
Murphy, Edward 
MeAleese, James 
Mister, W. C. 

Mu ler, D H? 
Moore, Joseph 
Moore, George 
Mathiot, James H, 





Senior Members. 


Needles, John 
Ninde, Col. Jas. -C. 
Nalls, B. F. 
Nichols, Warren 
Needles, Chas. E. 
Norris, James 
Nizer, Thos. A. 
Newell, Peter 
Newman, Wm. W. 
Northerman, John 
Nogues, Joseph 
Norbeck, Wm, 
Naylor, A. J. 
Norman, J. R. 
Neilson, George 
Nicholls, R. H, 


Neal, Geo. H. C. 
Northerman, C. 
Nichols, Wm. J. 
Nicolay, Jules 


Junior Members. 


Nicholson, C. G. 
Nicholson, J. H. R. 
Newlin, Allen H. 
Nicholson, J. K. 
Neidhamer, John G. 
Nolen, John 
Nixdorff, Harrison 
Newman, Benj. 
Needham, Asa Jr. 
Navy, George W. 
Nicolai, Henry A. 
Norman, Joseph 
Nizer, Saml. H. Jr. 
Nutling, Henry N. 
Nail, George 
Noggla, James 
Nolen, Watson 
Newman, Geo. L. 
Noyes, Edward 
Norris, Edgar J. 
Nicholson, Jas. A. K. 
Noble, Henry 
Nicholson, James 
Needhamer, Wm. 
Norris, John C, 


0. 
Senior Members. 


O’Donnovan, J. H. Jr. 
Orrick, John C. 
Orrick, Edward G. 
Oettinger, Moses 
O’Brien, Mathew 
Owens, James 
Orndorff, John H. 
Onion, Edward D. 


Junior Members. 


Oberndorf, Julius 
Oldham, Joseph D. 
Ogle, James 
O’Laughlin, S. W. 
Otter, Joseph 
Osburn, Henry 
Oliver, Joseph L. 
Orrick, Wm. K. Jr. 
Orrick, Keener 
Ould, Perry 
O’Laughlin, Michael 








57 


O’Leary, William 
Owens, Thomas 
O’Conner, John 
O’Neill, Henry 
Onion, J. H. 
O’Neal, Thomas 
Osborn, Joseph 
O’Brien, Michael 
O’Connor, Paul 
Orndorff, Wilson H. 


b = 


Senior Members. 


Penrose, E. G. 
Pearson, Henry 
Proctor, S. T. 
Prentice, Sumner 
Plummer, John F. 
Pope, George A. 
Price, N. C. 
Peregoy, Caleb 
Perkins, Dr. E. H. 
Perry, Elijah 
Perine, Maulden . 
Perine, M. David 
Prettyman, E. P. 
Perry, Albert A. 
Porter, R.B. 
Pennington, Josiah 
Pyfer, Philip H. 
Peregoy, Robert H. 
Parks, James H. 
Parkenson, J. B. 
Perry, B. A. 
Patien, Wm. Jr. 


Phippen, George, Jr. 


Pouder, George W. 


Peregoy, John H. W. 


Powell, Charles R. 
Phoenix, Thomas 
Perry, Allen A. 
Patterson, Thomas 
Posey,)o: ab. 
Phillips, A. 
Phelps, J. B. T. 
Parkhurst, S. 
Parkhurst, G. T. 
Pearce, G. H. 
Price, John H. 
Porter, George U. 
Preston, Wm. P. 
Phillips, John B. 
Packie, Alexander 
Perine, Oliver 
Pitt, Thomas J. 
Perkins, P. L. 





Parks, Lloyd B. 
Palmer, B. Frank 
Percell, John J. 
Parr, James L. 
Pollock, H. 
Parkhurst, J. 
Peters, William 
Poole, Robert » 
Pope, Franklin F. 
Phillips, Solomon H. 
Payne, James 
Placide, Henry 
Peters, William H. 
Palmer, George M. 
Piet, J. B, 

Purden, Furgus 
Primrose, Wm. G. 
Potter, James 
Page, William 
Patten, Richard 
Picker, John C. 
Palmer, Wm. C. 


Junior Members. 


Pollack, Herman 
Pollack, Uriah A. 
Plummer, Wm. James 
Patterson, Benjamin 
Price, Frank 

Page, Albert C. 
Price, Francis A. 
Patrick, B. F. 

Pitt, William T. 
Purdy, Wm. H. 
Price, Norman 
Parker, Edward G. 
Powell, Wm. H. 
Parrish, Lewis E. 
Placide, Henry F. 
Pope, David 8. 
Pope, Daniel F. 
Passano, Leonard, Jr. 
Passano, Joseph 
Peerce, Alfred A. 
Pindle, E. A. 

Perry, Elliott 

Perry, Leonard B. 
Ploughman, Augustus 
Park, Joseph L. 
Pearce, James H. 
Perine;, 1. P: 
Perine, John Thomas 
Powell, Thomas M. 
Petherbridge, Wm. 
Patten, Charles 
Perry, Ansel 

Phelan, James 


Pentz, A. P. 
Presstman, Thomas R. 
Padget, Robert 
Post, E. Howard 
Piper, John 
Plummer, Nathan 
Porter, B. B. 
Palmer, Edward L. 
Pierce, John C. 
Patterson, John 
Phillips, James H. 
Preston, Wm. G. 
Parran, James 
Purvis, A. 
Pendergast, C..C. 
Pentz, James M. 
Price, Alfred A. 
Park, Samuel S. 
Phillips, Thos. N. S. 
Pamphillain, James 
Pedrick, George 
Price, Richard 
Peck. A.J. 

Price, A. D. 
Phelps, D. W. 
Penniman, Thomas 
Placide, H. B. 
Poe, Nelson, Jr. 
Placide, Paul D. 
Phillips, James 
Parkhurst D. 
Poole, Henry 


Pitt, C. 
Phillips, B. F. 
Price, A. H. 


Phillips, James B. 
Pearce, Mathew C. Jr. 
Paul, Jennings 

Paine, Leander 
Parkhurst, A. R. 


Q. 


Senior Members. 
Quail, George K, 
Junior Memsers. 
Quail, Robert R. 
Quinlin, L. G. Jr. 
R. 
Senior Members, 


Rogers, James S. 
Robbins, H. R. 





58 


Reddish, John H. 
Rennous, Edward G. 
Rhoads, W. 

Rupp, Reuben F. 
Rose, S. L. 

Rupp, Wm. H. 
Ratios, Charles H. 
Reip, Lawrence J. 
Rodenmayer, F. T. 
Robinson, E, W. 
Reese, Edward 
Roberts, Alfred 
Roberts, J. McClain 
Rast; L: 

Roulett, Richard 
Reynolds, V. DeWitC. 
Richardson, Geo. J. 
Ryan, John 
Reynolds, Jesse K. 
Richardson, Edwd. A. 
Reed, R. W. 
Ringrose, C. J. 
Rigney, Charles D. 
Richardson, Wm. E. 
Roche, John A. 
Reese, Andrew 
Reese, Henry 
Rogers, Wm. F. 
Rieneker, J. F. 
Reese, Thomas M 
Rohrer, M.. H. 
Rosenfeld, Simon 
Rodgers, John 
Rodgers, William 
Rodgers, G. H. 
Richardson, S: MeD. 
Randolph, James P. 
Reynolds, B. R. 
Rothe!!, Thomas 
Reindollar, J. T- 
Roberts, H. T. 
Redgrave, Wm. B. 
Richards, Isaac 
Robb, John A. 
Robb, E. T. 

Rowe, Spencer 
Reynolds, Charles A. 
Rea, John FE. 

Rea, Charles H. 
Ringgold, John P. 
Root, Henry R. 
Rosensteel, Ambrose 
Richardson, John W. 
Ross, Charles H. 
Ross, Edward C. 
Richardson, James W. 
Russell, John 
Robinson, Thomas H.} 





Rosenswig, E. 
Randolph, John W. 
Robinson, Benjamin 
Rogers, G. D. 

Robb, James A. 
Roberts, Dr.G.C. M. 
Russell, Alexander 
Robinson, William 
Robinson, Francis 
Rogers, Evans 
Reeder, Charles, Jr. 
Reitz, Philip 

Robb, John A. Jr. 
Rooney, Patrick 
Rhodes, Henr 
Rencher, William 
Robins, Benjamin 
Raymo, Lewis 
Rhein, Josiah G. 
Russell, Michael 
Roche, Michael 
Roney, John 
Russell, John A. 
Robinson, Charles 
Richardson, Wm. H. 
Ring, David 
Roberts, Joseph 
Rush, Thos. Jefferson 
Remly, George W. 
Reed, Edwaid W. 
Ropes, Archer 
Rowe, Joseph 
Rothwell, Elijah 
Reaside, Miss Mary A. 


Junior Members. 


Raborg, Christopher 
Reeves, Jo-eph F. Jr. 
Roche, C. H. 
Rutter, Robert H. 
Reilley, Robert M. 
Rich, Wm. 
Reifsnider, Wm. E. 
Reip, Joseph Henry 
Remare, Richard A, 
Readell, C. W. D. 
Richstein, William 
Reitz, Lewis H. 
Ramsey, John 
Robinson, John G. 
Retan, Charles P. 
Robinson, James 
Reitz, Wm. H. L. 
Ruff, John P. 
Rasin, Robert W. L. 
Rasin, Alfred R. 
Robins, Augustus 


Ricketts, Charles 
Roach, George J. Jr. 
Ryan, John J. 
Rowe, Joseph T. 
Roszel, S. George 
Redding, Wm. H. 
Richardson, F. A. 
Reifsnider, John R. 
Richardson, Geo. T. 
Richardson, Wm. 
Ross, Wm. W. 
Reynolds, Wm. G. 
Richardson, Chas. M. 
Reese, J. E. Jr. 
Richardson, Jas. P. 
Rutter, Thos. C. 
Reilly, Wm. P. 
Raymo, Chas. M. 
Ross, Wm. Kk. Wyatt 
Rothrock, Joseph 
Rhodes, John F. 
Robinson, S. W. 
Rozel, D. B. 

Rey: olds, Samuel 
Royston, E. B. 
Robinson, J. G. 
Richardson, J. O. 
Ryan, Peirce 
Royston, John W. 
Rhodes, George R. 
Reese, Henry D. 
Redgrave, Samuel T. 
Rose, Chas. H. 
Roberts, George R. 
Ruth, Joseph 
Reynolds, John 
Reed, Nelson 8. 
Ross, John W. 
Reynolds, James A. 
Ricketts Thomas 
Richard, Thomas S, 
Ridgaway, Jumes 
Richem, Henry 
Ringgold, ©. F. 
Reese, Joshua, Jr. 
Rooker, Josiah O. 
Reilly, Francis 
Royston, Joshua D. 
Reese, Daniel W. 
Riordon, John 
Robinson. E P. 
Rodewald. Frederick 
Ray, Nicholas’ B. 
Robinson, James 
Reynolds, Wm. Henry 
Radeche, Harman 
Radeche, John 
Rollins, F. H. 
Reynolds, Joseph P. 





59 


Read, Edward 
Senior members. 


Shephard, Moses 
Simpson, James T. 
Sanders, Beverly 
Stevens, Robert A. 
Shultz, Samuel 
Smith, Charles R. 


Sylvester, Thomas H. 


Sanders, Robert T. 
Startzman, David 
Saunders, J. Mowton 
Simms, Joseph 
Stuart, Glendy 
Sharer, Wm. G. 
Stauf, Henry 

Sutton, James L. 
Shaw, Mathew 


Summerlock, John F. 


Shoemaker, W. 8. 
Smith, Dr. Gideon B. 
Stubbs, Edmund H. 
Scott, John Thomas 
Savage, Joseph R. 
Snow, E. J. 
Shakespeare, Edwd. 
Sweany, John H. 
Steiner, Dr. L. H. 
Smyth, Wm. 
Smith, R. H. 
Small, William H. 
Sherwood, Wm. 8. 
Selby, John S. 
Smyth, William 
Sheets, James M. 
Stow, Thomas 
Shipley, Charles L. 
Sumwalt, A. W. 
Smith, Wm. Prescott 
Street, Thomas 
Slater, James 
Seyler, Frederick 
Shaw, Wm. S. 
Streeter, J. F. 
Stewart, J. V. D. 
Steliman, John 
Stincheomb, John A. 
Smith, J. Christian 
Schaeffir, Geo. A. 
Starr, B. F. 

Stabler, Edward H. 
Stockbridge, Jason 
Strohmenger, John 
Smith, George 
Spilman, Henry 
Shannon, J. P. 
Shipley, L. G. 











Street, J.C. 
Showacre,H C. 
Stewart, Henry D. 
Schofield, B. 

Slicer, Henry W. 
Simpson, Wm. A. 
Stockes, Wm B. 
Slack, Wm. B. 
Sauerhoft, G. T. 
Schwatka, Charles A. 
Sullivan, John C. 
Sprague, E. R. 
Stewart, Charles J. 
Stincheomb, Wm. W. 
Stewart, Thomas 
Suter, James 8. 
Simpson, John R. 
Stevens, George G. 
Sandys, Edwin 
Shakespeare, B. F. 
Smyser, Henry C. 
Spedden, G. A. 
Shultz, A. 

Slack, John 

Schultz, E. 

Sparklin, B. J. 
Shaeffer, Frederick L. 
Simpson, Geo. B. 
Stevens, William 
Staigerwald, Myer 
Smith, G. D. 

Starr, Wm. M. 
Stockton, Rev. T. H. 
St-wart, Joseph W. 
Smith, Samuel, Jr. 
Smith. J. Irwin 
Shipley, Charles E. 
Stewart, George 
Spencer, Jervis 
Stansbury, Elijah 
Schuller, J. A. 
Soper, Samuel J. 
Spilman, A B. 
Sherwood, Richard 
Sanders, Wm. A. 
Shoemaker, Jonathan 
Segers, Francis 
Spedden, Major Edwd. 
Sheets, George T. 
Spies, John G. 
Shurtz, W. D. 
Scribner, J. 

Seeger, Jacob 
Stabler, Francis 
Slaughter James C. 
Sitler, Morris 
Shanks, Thomas 
Sloan, James 

Sharp, A. P. 


Slaney, John M. Sr. 
Slaney, John M. Jr. 
Sarsfield, S. J. 
Shipley, L velace 
Sharp, S. J 
Summers, Joseph G. 
Sank, Joseph H. 
Stran, Wm. H: 
Sparhawk, S. 
Schoolfield, L. A. 
Smith, Henry C. 
Stanley. John 
Slade, Edward 
Smith, Thomas T. 
Smith, Henry M. 
Searley, Charles R: 
Shoemaker, S. M. 
Starr, Joseph 
Swift, M. C, 

Short, John H. 
Steifel, Julius 
Stone, James H. 
Spies, Charles L. 
Stewart, John 
Super, Daniel 
Stewart, W. A. 
Schwartz, Julius 
Stewart, Wm. C. 
Sehmayer, S. 
Summer, John 8. 
Sloan, George F. 
Snow, E. J. 

Slicer, Wm. 

Slade, James 
Stromberg, John Hy. 
Small, John Henry 
Siarr, W. G. 
Stone, James H. of EH. 
Simmonds, Dennis 
Stinehofer, Christian 
Spencer, Compton 
Sank. Joseph W. 
Stouffer, Jacob 
Scott, Eli 

Spilker, Wm H. 
Stites, Dr. William 


Junior Members. 


Stevenson, Wm. W. 
Stephens, J. £. 
Schmidt, Jacob 
Savage, Charles E. 
Swoyer, Frederick 
Swoyer, Samuel 
Snyder, Daniel 
Simon, August 





60 


Snavely, Joseph 
Simonson, Wm. C. 
Swain, Wm. H. 
Snyder, John M. 
Spencer, Oliver J. 
Sylvester, Edward C. 
Stine, Wm. W. 
Sparl, John Henry 
Schnibbe George 
Schultz, L. H. 
Sauerwein, Chas. D. 
Stallings, Wm. H. 
Smith, John D. 
Street, Edwin A. 

St. John, James 
Shaw, Samuel T. 
Stewart, John M. 
Stauf, Charles 
Sitler, Morris, Jr. 
Sumner, W. Henry 
Shane, William 
Shaw, Marshall G. 
Scherar, Frederick 
Sanderson, F. Henry 
Sparhawk, John J. 
Skillman, George 
Sullivan, T E. 
Sollers, Wm. 
Shoemaker, Wm. 
Stewart, J. S. 
Shutz, Christopher 
Steer, Lewis W. 
Super, Wm. H. 
Sutton, Maltier 
Shaw, James V. 
Spear, P. Forney 
Spear, James Otis 
Stevens,S A, 
Stevens, Charles B. 
Scott, Joseph P. 
Spedden, Oliver W. 
Shoemaker, E. B. S. 
Smith, Frederick C. 
Shryock, Wm. H. 
Simpson, George L. 
Southerland, Geo. A. 
*hehan, George A. 
Stewart, Ebenezer \ 
Stewart, Charles 
Simpson, Robert 
Savin, Marcus D. 
Schoolfield, Wm. H. 
Seibert, Edward 
Schwartzhaupt, C. 
Smith, J. Stewart 
Schnenner, John Hy. 
Schwartz, A. F. 
Savage, John W. 


Stewart, Albert V. 
Sweeney, Lewis D. 
Slicer, Philip M. 
Sharp, Charles E. 
Stewart, John M, 
Snyder, Walter 
Smith, Wm. F. 
Smith, John T. 
Stapleton, Edward 
Stubbs, Richard B. 
Staylor, George W. 
Stephens, Thos. M, 
Stinchcomb, Joshua 
Sudman, Hy. 
Sewell, Charles A. 
Sadtler, C. C. 
Smith, Wm. P. of S.A. 
Sauerhoff, F. O. 
Stran, Richard B. 
Shipley, B. E. 
Shanley, John J. 
Sheckells, Charles 
Stalford, John H. 
Sherwood, James H. 
Stemmer, Lewis E. 
Searley, Jas. E. Jr. 
Shamer, Theodore 
Stow, Lewis S. 
Shipley, Francis L. 
Smith, Henry 
Secombe, Edward, Jr. 
Sturgeno, Henry D. 
Stembler, J. A. 
Schoolfield, Geo. A. 
Schoolfield, L. H. 
Setlen, Daniel 
Stauf, Alexander 
Stoane, J. F. 
Shannon, William’ 
Sumwalt, Henry W. 
Seidenstricker, A. B. 
Smoot, Albert 
Sutton, S. 
Stevenson, H. S. 
Slofer, Frederick 
Skinner, John C, 
Sparhawk, Saml. H. 
Snead, Robert 
Shorey, Wm F. 
Spencer, Thos. M. 
Steinhofer, Christian 
Stow, Charles 
Stuntz, Charles 
Small, Bruce 
Scott, G. L. 

Sloan, Wm. J. 
Sanders, Frank 
Shaney, Joseph 


Scott, Wm. G. 
Straw, Frederick 
Sentz, George P. 
Scott, James J. 
Seidenstricker, Hy. A. 
Simon, Frederick W. 
Stith, W. W. 

Scott, L. C. 
Smithson, James 
Suter, James W. 
Sutherland, John M. 
Stewart, Wm. Brewer 
Sunderland, Chas. H. 
Scotti, P. 

Shell, James H. 
Sinclair, Wm. 
Slinkman, John H. 
Stewart, C. H. 
Snyder, James S. 
Spencer, Wm. 
Slaughter, J. G. 
Slaughter, Wm. 
Shorey, N. B. 
Smadley, Wm. L. 
Sheck, Adolphus 
Stylor, Lewis 
Spear, H. G. 
Shipley, F. M. 
Stewart, James S. 
Street, Isaac 

Sickel, Edward 
Strohm, H. F. 
Starr, John, Jr. 
Stone, Charles H. 
Stack, Garrett 
Sichle, Jacob, Jr. 
Sloan, James 
Simpson, Theodore 
Smith, Elijah B. 
Sellman, H. D. 
Sawkins, Frederick 
Selby, Nicholas R. 
Selby, Joseph 
Sanders, John 
Smith, Thomas H. 
Sultzer, Wm. H. H. 
Spedden, Edward 
Starr, EK. G. 
Sanders, John M. 
Scott, James S. 
Smith, Wm. S. 
Skinner, Wm. 
Sloan, Chas. H. 
Sapp, Jacob H. 
Stewart, Jas. C. 
Sankin, A. H. 
Simms, George 
Slade, F. 

Stieff, Chas. 








61 


Stoops, Wm H. 
Spence, James C. 
Slater, W. H. 
Smoot, Wm. 
Stokeley, Wm. 
Starr, Wm. H. 
Simpson, Thos. B. 
Sanders, Geo. W. 
Supplee, Wilbur F. 
Stier, Upton 

Sharp, George, Jr. 
Sanders, George W. 
Stansbury, J. W. 
Shultz, Frederick 
Skinner, G. H. 
Sturman, J. F. 
Simpson, R. B. 
Slicer, Chas. H. 
Scott, John W. 
Sands, Joseph E. 
Shaffer, Augustus 
Stevenson, Chas. C. 
Scarff, G. W. 
Smull, Jacob B. 
Stockes, John R. 
Scarff, Wm. Thomas 


ie 


Senior Members. 


Thayer, N. H. 
Timanus, John T: 
Thomas, H. Mifflin 
Tischmeyer, L. 
Taylor, Wm. S. 
Tennant, Thomas 
Thurston, D. T. 
Taylor, George 


Thompson, Capt. H.A. 


Tysinger, Lewis 
Tyson, J. P. 
Tewksbury, Geo. D. 
Thomas, John 
Trimble, Jas. M. 
Torney, Leonard J. 
Toland, Wm. 
Townsend, Samuel 
Taylor, H. W. 
Thomas, Jas. P. 
Tall, Washington 
Tall, Wm. 

Thomas, Philip F. Jr. 
Taylor, Samuel G. 
Turner, Joseph 
Trego, Wm. 
Thomas, John F, 
Turner, Chas. 
Tillyard, Alfred H, 








Trump, Chas. M. 
Tyler, G. K. 
Taylor, G. W. 
Trotton, Thomas 
Taylor, Henry 
Taylor, Levi 
Trimble, David B. 


Towson, J. T. 
Taylor, R. Q. 
Titcumb, B. 


Thomas, Wm. G. 
Turner, John C. 
Tustin, Wm. 
Tanner, Benjamin 
Trump, C. 

Thomas, J. S. 
Tegmyer, John H. 
Tull, Thos. J. 
Thompson, Arthur D. 
Turner, Robert 
Thomas, Joseph A. 
Thomas, Joseph B. 
Thomas, Dr. John C. 
Tabb, J. T. W. 
Trought, John T. 
Turner, John M. 
Thomas, Dr. R. H. 
Trump, Newbold C. 
Tyler, G. C. 
Torney, P. J. 
Thorpe, W. W. 
Tyson, George 
Taylor, Wm. 
Talbott, W. M. 
Thompson, Thos. J. 
Tongue, S. D. 
Turner, Thos. V. 
Taylor, Robert 
Tansby, Thomas 
Towson, Obediah 


Junior Members. 


Torney, John H. 
Torney, Edward C. 
Turner, Wm. L. 
Tucker, Joseph, Jr. 
Taylor, Jas. Jr. 
Thomas, Samuel W. 
Thomas, Edwd, GC. Jr. 
Torney, G. W. 
Townsend, Joseph C. 
Tyson, Joshua H. 
Thomas, Sam]. Drew 
Thomas, R. P. 
Thompson, Joseph, Jr. 
Thomas, Lawrence A. 
Townsend, L. W. 
Taylor, Major S. 


Tyler, John A. 
Tyler, Joseph 
Trull, George, Jr. 
Tyler, Wm. 8S. 
Terral, James 
Thomas, Wm. 
Taylor, Howard 
Tewksbury, Chas. 8. 
Teal, Jas. R. 

Tull, Wm. T. 
Thompson, G. Z. 
Trego, John 
Tilyard, John P. 
Tilghman, Wm. 
Thompson, Geo. B. 


Thompson, Alfred W. 


Thomas, Richard 
Thater, Philip 
Thomas, Wm. Henry 
Tucker, Samuel T. 
Toner, George W. 
Thiemyer, Lewis 
Taylor, Wm. H. 
Taylor, T. L. 
Thomas, Samuel 
Tripp, Andrew C. 
Truitt, David J. O. 
Trilley, Joseph 
Tyler, Daniel 
Trayser, Philip S. 
Taylor, James 
Todd, John 

Tyler, George T. 
Tyler, Chas. 
Thomas, Philip E. Jr. 
Twilly, Henry C. 
Trotton, Ferdinand 


Thompson, John A. Jr. 


Tipton, Joshua A. 
Tucker, George W. 
Travers, Thos. B. 
Turner, Jas. B. 
Taylor, John 
Tudor, G. R. 
Tucker, Jas. Hugh 
Turner, Geo. W. 
Taylor, Wm. H. 
Trimble, Robert M. 


Thomas, Joseph B. Jr. 


Treulieb, Peter 
Tydings, R. E. 
Tibbals, Walter B. 
Thomas, Wm. H. 


U 


Senior Members. 
Upshur, James M. 





62 


Uhler, Erasmus 


Junior Members. 
Ubert, John P. 


Ublhorn, F. A. 
Uhihorn, J. H. K. 


Vv 


Senior Members. 
Verlander, Joseph 
Vansant, Joshua 


Volkmar, Charles 
Vansant, Richard 


Junior Members. 


Valentine, John 


‘| Vincente, Edward P. 


Vogt, Frederick 
Vinson, S. J. 
Volkmar, Chas. Jr. 
Vinson, Geo. H. 
Vickery, Edward 
Vallette, G. E. 
Vansant, Joseph 
Voneiff, John 
Vanness, John J. 
Vogt, John H. 


w 


Senior Members. 


Watson, James 
Wilkins, William 
Willis, B. F. 
Wolf, Jacob 

Wise, R. J. S. 
Wetherald, Thos. 
Warner, A. W. 
Winter, Wm. P. 
Weitzell, John 
Watson, Jas. T. 
Wallace, Wm. A. 
Warren, E. B. 
Watt, J. G. 
Weishampel, J. F. Jr. 
Williams, G. A. 
Wiison, Wm. H. 
Wheeler, J. Columbus 
Woodward, Jas. G. 
Ward, James 
Watkins, Joseph P. 
Webb, James 
Webb, Albert L. 
Waugh, A. T. 


Wolf, Adam 
Wilson, John H. 
Wilson, Saml. 
Wheeler, Darius 
Wonderly, John 
Williams, W. J. 
Wentz, Saml. H. 
Walker, J. W. 
Webb, Geo. D. 
White, Wm. G. 
Wright, John W. 
Welsh, Alexander 
Wylie, Jas. H. 
Wallace, Geo. F. 
Williamson, Angus 
Winn, John T. 
Weaver, John H. 
Wilson, James 
Wince, Daniel 
Wheeler, D. A. 
Welsh, J. B. 
Warner, Andrew Sr, 
Watson, Wm. H. 
Woodward, John H. 
Watkins, Evans 
Wiiliams, N. F. 
Woodworth, F. 
Wilkins, Bartus 
Webb, Geo. W. 
Winchester, S. G, 
Woodward, Wm. 
Waltham, C. S. 
Waters, H. G. 
Warden, James 
Ward, William 
Wright, Alfred 
Woodside, Wm. 8. 
Wethered, John 
Welsh, Mrs. John 
Walker, Joseph 
White, Thos. P. 
Warden, Hugh 
Winter, Samuel 
Woodward, Geo. P. 
Warner, A. E. Jr. 
Walker, Wm. 
Wilson, Thomas 
Wheat, J. B. 
Wethered, Chas. IE. 
Waite, R. C. 
Walter, Geo. K. 
Whitman, E. 
Wier, Robert 
Wood, James H. 
Warford, R. C. 
Wilson, J. Baynard 
Worley, Adam 
Watson, Charles 
Walker, John M. 
Waskey, Benjamin 





Weitzell, Thomas 
Woodward, D. A. 
Wetherald, S. B. 
Whittington, John 
Williamson, C. 
Wright, Joel 

West, Charles 
Washington, John 
Witman, George 
Warder, George A. 
Welch, Warren 
Whittney, Thos. M. 
Webb, Chas. H, 
Ward, Nathlaniel 
Walsh, Thomas' 
Watson, John H 
Wenkelman, H. 
Wright, Daniel 
Wilson, James B. 
Webb, George 
Wood, John P. 
Williar, A. J. 
Williams, Nathaniel 
Ward, James R 
Williams. Wm. 
Wells, Bejamin N. 
Williams, H. S. 
Wheeting, M. C. 
Whitelock, W. 
Wiler, Samuel 


Junior Members. 


Wonderly, William 
Wells, Clinton G. 
Willis, William 
Walsh, Wm. Geo. 
Wilson, N. 

Wenn, Geo. W. 
Wagenschwautz, F. 
Wehrhame, Charles 
Wiley, Alexander 
Webster, Geo. H. 
Wells, William H. 
Whitehouse, James 
Walsh, James 
Warner, George T. 


Williamson, James J. 


Working, William 
Wylie, Saml. S. . 
Wallace, Joseph H. 
Wallace, Richard M. 
Wain, Wm. L. 
Williams, Edward 
Waters, James K. 
Watts, Nathaniel S. 
Ward, John T. 
Weber, Wm. F. 





63 


Weber, J. H. 

Winn, William H. | 
West, George 
Wilkinson, W. H. B. 
West, William W. 
Wheedon, Eugene 
Ward, Wm. E. 
Warfield, Lewis M. 
Wheeler, Jerome 
Woldman, John H. 
Williams, A. A. 
Whitelock, Saml. R. 
Winchester, Oliver A. 
Wilcox, Thomas J. 
Wix, Henry 

Webb, Chas. H. 
Winn, Jas. Power 
White, Jobn S. 
Warfield, Joseph 
Wild, Lewis 


Winneberger, John i 


Watis, Thomas D. ~~ 
Webster, P. A. 
Webb, Lewis S. 
Wilson, Wm. T. 
Weliener, Joseph W. 
Wehn, Philip 

Webb, John 

Webb, Thomas N. 
White, Robt. Wilson 
Wharton, B. B. H. 
Wheeden, James B. 
Wheeden Thomas J. 
Wentz, Charles 
Welsh, Samuel 
Warner, Wm. H. 
Whitehead, James J. 
Wolf, Alonzo L. 
Wallace, James 
Webb, George H. 
Watkins, John M. 
Wylie, George 
Wible, J. T. 
Warrington, Lewis 
Ward, Joseph A. 
White, John 

Wilson, William 
Woodward, Wm. Jr. 
Wivel, William 
Weaver, Charles 
Williamson, S. J. 
Wright, Charles E. 
Wheeler, Chas. A. 
Wheeden, Edward 
Wells, Peter F. 
Woodsides, Jas. I. 
Williams, J. B. 
Wherheim, J. Philip 
Wells, Chas. Wesley 





Watts, James B. 
Walker, Geo. W. 
Wilkison, Richard 
Watkins, Wesley 
Westwood, Wm. P 
Worley, William N. 
Wingate, Sam]. B. 
Woodsides, Edward 
Watts, Benjamin 
Waters, Wm. J. H. 
Weatherby, Charles 
White, John Wm. 
Wood, N. L. Jr. 
White, Joseph 
Warring, Thomas 
Wedge, William S. 
Waters, M. E. 
Wright, John 
Williamson, C. F. 
Winsett, John R. 
Watts, John M. 
White, J. Chas. 
Wilson, James Thos. 
White, Greenbery 
Woods, Robert 
Ward, Wm. H. 
Ward, Joseph 
Webb, John T. 
Wildey, Augustus 
Ward, Ross 
Wallace, Wm. S. 
Weber, Henry 
Wills, Joseph F. 
Wilkens, Geo. Thos. 
Wightman, Wm. T,. 
Watts, P. A. 
Warfield, J. A. 
Waters, C. E. 
Wild, John F. 
Wilson, Arch. Jr. 
Wilson, Samuel 
Walker, Noah D. 
Walker, P. H. 
Wagner, William 
Wilkins, Edward 
Wilson, Geo. W. 
Williams, J. A. 
Weems, George 
Warfield, Thomas 
Woolsey, Wm. B. 
Wamaling, R. L. 
Williams, William H. 
Wales, James 
Welner, EF. L. 
Ward, James E. 
Wells, Wm. A 
Weems, John 
Whitiridge, John A. 
Waters, T. C. Sidney 


64 


Wilkinson, Saml J. 
Walter, James 
Wild, George 
Wright, James R. 


Watkins, J. W. Jr. 
Wentz, Henry C. 
Walker, R. J. J. 
West, Wm. H. 
White, W. P. P. 
Welmore, Edward H. 
Wethered, L. ata 
Wrizht, G. W. T. 
Williams John of J. 
Waite, Samuel R. 


Wolf, Nicholas Young, Wm. H. 
Wonn, Alfred Young, Joseph A. 
Watkins, M. S. Young, David 


Winter, Francis B. 
Wilson, James M. 
Weiss, Wm. Fredk. 
Whitman, Lewis M. 
Whitworth, Chas. W. 
Wilbur, David C. 
Wheeler, Joseph 
Wetherby, J. K. 


Young, James 
Yates, Dr. John L. 
Younger, Francis A. 
Young, Wm. J. 
Yager, A. J. 
Young, Wm. G. 

' Young, H. H. 

oung, John 


Senior Members. 


Yarrington, John 
Junior Members. 
Yoe, Benjamin R. 
Young, Alexander Jr. 
Yeatman, William 
a 

Senior Members. 
Zentmyer, W. C. 
Zimmerman, Geo. J. 
Zerkel, Charles 
Junior Members. 


Zimmerman, Charles 
Zimmerman, Wm. H. 














AN Wrrpat 


TO 


THE LAITY OF MARYLAND, 


AGAINST 


THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPAL DESPOTISM, 








AN APPEAL 


THE LAITY OF MARYLAND, 


AGAINST 


THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPAL DESPOTISM, 


. ULRIC VON HUTTEN. 


(\- 


Ad populum provoco. 


WASHINGTON : 
PRINTED BY JNO. T. TOWERS. 
1850. 


Try se Andes ics tei bite a LP " 
i us i} 7 


Maat a) t ae WA x 


ver 1 ENN VE 


MAMA 

‘ 

: Yeh Gee Bite bi ” BE TH i 
7 





: Lani hehe 


PUR MS le ‘ 
ta ‘ pat = “i o 


AN APPEAL TO THE LAITY OF MARYLAND 


AGAINST 


THE DIVINE RIGHT OF EPISCOPAL DESPOTISM. 





The Right Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, D. D., Bishop 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland, 
has not a little disturbed the quiet of the Diocese by the setting 
up of novel pretensions, unknown to his predecessors, defended 
by more novel principles, and threatening, by the proselyting 
vigor with which they are propagated, to obliterate the ancient 
landmarks of the Church. 

Among these new pretensions is the claim to be entitled, “on 
occasions of canonical visitations, to control the services, and to 
take to himself such portions of them as he may think proper.” 

Such is the conclusion of the obsequiously devoted committee 
charged with the consideration of that portion of the Bishop’s 
communication to the Convention relating to the case of Dr. 
Johns, of Christ Church. 

The case out of which the contest arose is susceptible of a 
brief statement. 

The Bishop, on the 15th of January, 1850, gave Dr. Johns no- 
tice of his intention to visit Christ Church on the 17th of March, 
at the usual hour of morning service, to celebrate divine service, 
preach, and confirm such candidates as the Rector should be 
then ready to present; and that he shouid be glad then to have 
preparation made for his celebration of the Holy Communion, 
and to have the devotions of the people, collected at the offertory, 
appropriated to the Diocesan Board of Missions. 

Dr. Johns replied on the 22d of January, 1850, expressing his 
readiness to have due and canonical preparation made at the ap- 
pointed time, to afford the Bishop every facility for examining the 
state of the Church, inspecting the behavior of the Rector, and 
administering the apostolic rite of confirmation. 

He declined to accede to his request touching the Holy Com- 
munion, and the devotions of the people at the offertory, because 
the rubrics assigned the former exclusively to the Parish Priest, 
and the latter were expressly placed by the canon in the hands 
of the Minister of the Parish, to be by him applied to such chari- 
table and pious uses as he thought fit. 

He conceded as a courtesy the privilege of reading the prayers, 
and preaching on the occasion, 


ij 


The Bishop of Maryland, on the 1st of February, 1850, revoked 
his notice of the 15th of January, as Dr. Johns declined to comply 
with his request to have preparations made for his administration 
of the Holy Communion. 

The issue is presented in these three letters. The first resolu- 
tion is the theoretic statement of the principle of law on which 
the Bishop of Maryland rests his claims and his justification ; and 
the “report” must be considered as the formal statement of the 
proof that the resolution embodies the law. 

It is observable that there is some apparent shrinking from the 
assertion of all the rights at first claimed. 

The notification involves the claim of right, Ist, to celebrate 
divine service ; 2d, administer the Holy Communion ; 3d, the rite 
of confirmation; 4th, and to collect and dispose of the devotions 
of the people at the offertory. 

Though the celebration of the Holy Communion and the dis- 
position of the devotions of the people at the offertory are ex- 
pressly denied to the Bishop of Maryland, and the right to read 
prayers and preach is impliedly denied by the conceding its ex- 
ercise as a favor or a courtesy, yet the withdrawal of the ap- 
pointment is apparently rested solely on the refusal to make pre- 
parations for the Holy Communion. . 

This may have been through inadvertence, or it may have been 
a politic narrowing of the assailable point in anticipation of a 
conflict ; not at all abandoning, but only holding in reserve till a 
more convenient season, claims less defensible than their com- 
panions, in the day of battle, but useful positions, inevitably fol- 
lowing victory on the other point. The committee, inspired by 
their deep sympathy with their Episcopal head, perhaps uncon- 
sciously tread in his footsteps ; and while reasoning out, and de- 
fending chiefly, if not exclusively, the asserted right to preach and 
administer the communion, imbody the result in a resolution em- 
bracing in sweeping language ail the pretensions of the Bishop of 
Maryland in the particular case. In staying their conclusion mid- 
way in the career pointed out by their reasonings and premises, 
their moderation is not a little more apparent than their logic. 

The positions of the report were assailed in argument by Mr. 
Gassaway, before the Convention, with a power of logie and pro- 

fusion of learning, whose best eulogy is the silent confession of 
his ablest adversaries that it was unanswerable. They chose to 
bear down by weight of disciplined numbers on positions where 
a conflict of reason could only thin their ranks, and adroitly 
silenced by a vote what it would have been unsafe to attempt to 
meet in argument. 

But such a speech could not be suffered—if only for the looks 
of the thing—to pass without an attempt to reply; and yet a 
viva voce answer was a hazardous experiment from the opportu- 
nity of sifting interrogatories and unmerciful interpellations not 
admitting of evasion or of answer, to which the speaker is ne- 


5 


cessarily exposed before a popular body. Recent experience had 
read them a lesson on the dangers of such a contest on doubtful 
ground in the signal overthrow of the Rev. Mr. Pyne and the 
Rev. Mr. Atkinson in their attempts to entangle Mr. Gassaway. 
The Editor of the Church Advertiser seems to have been so be- 
wildered by the rapid cut and thrust of this gladiatorial display, 
as very simply to remark “that Mr. Pyne put several very perti- 
nent questions, to which we did not understand the reverend gen- 
tleman as giving very positive replies ;” yet the querists were pro- 
bably satisfied with them, and perhaps in a cooler moment in read- 
ing the speech the Editor may understand how positive they were. 

Thus prudently guided, the friends of the Bishop of Maryland, 
after the lapse of a due period of gestation, produced vicariously 
by Mr. Hugh Davy Evans, “An Examination of Mr. Gassa- 
way’s Argument.” 

It presents, it is to be presumed, in their most elaborate and 
finished shape, the principles on which the report and the first 
resolution of the committee are to be defended. It must be con- 
sidered as the deliberate embodiment, in an authorized form, of 
the principles which preside over the Episcepal administration 
of this Diocese by its right reverend head; and by its reasoning 
and authority his policy must stand or fall. It is the Bishop of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in Maryland speaking by the 
mouth of Hugh Davy Evans, Esq. 

I mean to estimate, with becoming respect for our right reve- 
rend head, and his reverend and learned defenders of the faith, 
the validity of the reasonings and results of the report and the 
reply; and regarding a large majority of the clergy as deaf to 
the voice of reason and of law when invoked in opposition to the 
pretensions of their Bishop—the veritable representative of the 
Apostles, to the eye illumined by the inner light of the succes- 
sion—I appeal to the people, the body of the Church, for a hearing 
on matters vitally touching the organization and interests, the 
permanency and well-being of the Church government their 
fathers saw best to adopt. 

When the nature of the question is considered, the course of 
argument of the report and reply are sufficiently significant. 

The question relates solely to the laws of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland, considered as a , 
Diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
of America. 

The report and the reply both assume the existence of legal 
rights inherent in the Bishop of this Diocese, flowing from some 
other source than the canons and constitution of this Church, 
and susceptible of being enforced in this Diocese canonically, 
though not conferred nor recognised by any of the canons, con- 
stitutions, rubrics, or forms of our Church. 

Mr. Evans quarrels with Mr. Gassaway’s statement of his prin- 
ciples ; but I must invoke the aid of his metaphysics to see the 
difference between them. 


6 


Mr. Gassaway states their principle to be “that a Bishop may 
do everything not prohibited by the canons.” Mr. Evans com- 
plains that it was a dexterous change of the true principle “that a 
Bishop may do everything which is within the scope of his office, when 
it is not prohibited by law;” yet on his view what is not with- 
in the scope of his office? Did Mr. Gassaway say a Bishop may 
do anything without the scope of his office, not prohibited by the 
canons? and if he did not, Mr. Evans’ qualification was equally 
needless and unfair; for it implies that Mr. Gassaway had so 
stated the principle he was opposing, by implication, if not ex- 
pressly. 

No one could be so simple as to suppose Mr. Gassaway to as- 
sert that his opponents maintained that a Bishop could literally 
do everything not prohibited; but, the language must be taken 
according to the subject under consideration, and that being the 
distribution of ecclesiastical and spiritual power and jurisdiction 
between the various orders of Ministers, he asserted the principle 
of the Bishop of Maryland and his supporters to be, that a Bishop 
may do every act appertaining to ecclesiastical and spiritual 
power and jurisdiction—every function of any order of the chris- 
trian ministry, as an inherent right, when not prohibited by a can- 
non or law of the church. And such I understand to be Mr. 
Evans’ position, and that of the report. Mr. Evans’ qualification 
is no qualification at all, for he is careful to inform us “that in 
the early period of the Church there were no such things as Par- 
ishes, and the Bishop was, therefore, the only person who had ju- 
risdiction within the Diocese, and might minister the word and 
sacrament when and where he pleased, within that Diocese.” Of 
course this means that in the early Church the Bishop could “do 
everything,” and others only acted by his license, and only exer- 
cised his authority by his permission—that the Bishop was the 
sole ecclesiastical authority, having jurisdiction in the Diocese. 

And he further states “that the institution of parishes altered 
this so far as it related to the Priests,and gave them a righi to 
minister the word and sacraments within their own parishes—but 
not to the exclusion of the Bishop.” J venture with becoming dif- 
fidence to interpret this statement. The Bishop of our Diocese 
retains his original, universal, and spiritual power and juris- 
. diction, except in so far as this, that Presbyters now have a right 
to minister in their respective parishes, independent, but not ex- 
clusive of the Bishop; that the Presbyters now minister, not when 
and where the Bishop pleases and at his will, but by law and as 
of right in certain parishes, but not to the exclusion of the Bishop’s 
right also there to minister the word and sacraments, in virtue of 
his original, inherent, and universal right of ministration throughout 
his Diocese. [respectfully suggest that the theory of Mr. Evans 
means this or it means nothing. If any law of the Church—and 
a canon, or rubric, or form of service, or an article of faith is sup- 
posed to merit that title—prohibit the exercise of any of those 


7 


original, inherent powers of the early Episcopate, Mr. Evans con- 
cedés with some hesitation, that the power cannot be exercised ; 
and I presume it is from the canons or laws establishing parishes 
that the right of the Priest to minister in these, independent of 
the Bishops permission and by a tenure other than his will, flows. 

Now from this theory a single step of logic leads us to a curi- 
ous conclusion. The Presbyter has a right to minister in his 
parish; but not exclusive of the Bishop’s right to minister the 
word and sacraments there also. 

The Bishop retains his original right to minister in every parish 
of his Diocese, and that original right extended to all times and 
places; but he cannot exclude the Presbyter, for he also has a 
right. Since then neither can exclude the other, and both have 
the same right, we have the right of the Bishop and the Presby- 
ter, at the same time and place, before the same congregation, 
with adverse lungs, to read the same prayers, preach different ser- 
mons, and double the same sacraments—which is absurd, as 
Euclid says at the end of a reductio ad absurdum. 

Of course our reverend instructors and learned respondent felt 
the pinch and strove to remedy it. The early Church avoided © 
the absurdity—I mean of course on their statement of what the 
early Church was—for to my readings of Church history there is 
in it more of fancy than of fact; it made the Presbyter the mere 
curate of the Bishop, ministering in his place and at his will only. 

Our modern ecclesiastical architects attempt to escape the dif- 
ficulty by asserting that the Church reconciles these conflicting 
rights, “by confining the Bishop in the exercise of his [right to ad- 
minister the sacraments and to rule in his whole Diocese and in 
every part of it,] to those comparatively rare occasions on which 
he goes officially, in his very Episcopal character, in visitation of 
a Parish.” 

But will my reverend and learned friends point to the law of 
the Church which thus limits the Episcopal prerogative? The 
theory goes a great way further—the logic points onward, and 
refuses to be thus arbitrarily arrested in mid career; and if the 
law of Episcopal right, derived from the early Church and inhe- 
rent in the character of our Right Reverend Fathers be as the 
report and reply maintain it to be, I insist on the Jaw which thus 
ties down their universal and absolute right to preach and minister , 
the sacraments, to those “ comparatively rare occasions” of Epis- 
copal visitations. 

We have the assertion of the report and of the reply that the 
right originally existed ; and that Episcopal prerogative survives 
in its pristine plenitude, unless where limited by law. I call for 
the production of the law which imposes this limitation. The au- 
thors of those documents have produced none; the report breaks 
out into eulogy of “the admirable system of the Church” in thus 
confining the Bishop; but it refers to no law nor to any au- 
thority for this serious invasion of the primitive right of Bishops; 


8 


and Mr. Evans is equally silent. I assert that no such law exists ; 
and therefore, if their theory of Episcopal power be assumed as 
true, the contradiction and absurdity above expressed is inherent 
and ineradicable. It clings to the theory and invests it with the 
air and mantle of falsehood. It is a reductioad absurdum, and so 
proves its falsity. 

But is the Church really guilty of such folly, or have the cham- 
pions of Episcopal prerogative, in their eager obsequiousness, en- 
tangled themselves in these contradictions by their daring attempt 
to deduce what the law 7s, from what according to a certain 
theory no where enacted into a law, they infer it ought to be? 
Both the report and the reply are directly amenable to that charge. 

The former, with courteous candor declares, that in reasoning 
with church men, it is lawful, at is indeed only respectful to them, 
to take as axioms those truths which the Church clearly main- 
tains, “however they may be doubted or denied by those out of 
her pale.” 

“Among such truths,” the report proceeds to assure us are the 
following : 

1. That Bishops are successors of the Apostles in the ordinary 
powers of their office. : 

2. That they are, therefore, enjoined to go into all the world 
to teach and disciple all nations, &c. 

3. That, consequently, Bishops, as such, have the right to 
preach and administer the sacraments, as well as to rule the 
Church. 

4. That these Episcopal rights are to be exercised in their 
Dioceses—these being their appointed fields of labor. 

5. That, consequently, the Bishop has a right to preach and 
administer the sacraments in his Diocese, independent of any 
parochial cure, and in every part of his Diocese. 

The conclusion follows from the premises beyond a doubt; but 
it follows in its full generality or not at all. If it is proved by 
these principles that the Bishop may at any time preach and ad- 
minister the sacraments in all parts of his Diocese, it also proves 
that he may do it at all tames, and at his will and pleasure. 

But this they are anxious not to maintain; and their process 
for restraining their too vigorous and fruitful logie is not a little 
curious, They deal with their conclusion as they had previously 
dealt with their premises, and arbitrarily curtail them of their 
fair proportions to fit the exigencies of the occasion. The true 
conclusion from their premises is, that though the Priest has now 
a right to minister in his parish, the Bishop retains his original 
right to minister there also at his will and pleasure; and so 
either both have the right, since the Bishop cannot remove the 
Priest, nor the Priest exclude the Bishop, or the supposed ancient 
system is only so far modified that the Priest has a right to min- 
ister in his parish to the exclusion of the right of the Bishop to 
remove him from it, to send him elsewhere, or to put another 


9 


ever or with him in it; but that the Bishop, when present, at any 
time and at all times, retains the right himself to resume the con- 
duct of the worship and the rule of the Parish, in virtue of his 
original right. This is the logical result of the principle asserted. 
This is plainly the doctrine maintained by Taylor in the extract 
inserted by Mr. Evans in his appendix, from the “ Episcopacy 
Asserted.” But openly to maintain so wide a doctrine was dan- 
gerous as yet; it was an esoteric principle which might break out 
hereafter; but for the present, though proving more, he was 
content to take less, and stop at the occasional right of supersed- 
ing the Priest on occasion of visitations only. 

It is an axiom, we are-reminded, which courtesy requires 
should be assumed in arguments between all churchmen, “that 
Bishops are the successers of the Apostles in the ordinary powers 
of their office.” When this axiom was elevated from the regions 
of doubtful disputation to its serene height of acknowledged 
truth, we confess our ignorance. We had innocently supposed 
that Whately, Goode, Sparrow, and Meade, had some pretensions 
to the title of churchmanship; but to attribute to them cencur- 
rence in any such axiom would savor rather of contempt than 
courtesy; and we are at a loss whether most to admire the cool- 
ness or the arrogance of this sect of yesterday in thus quietly as- 
suming the disputed and repudiated mystery of the apostolical 
succession as a conceded and recognised axiom of the Church. 

Whether true or false historically, our Church has never, in 
any of her formularies or laws, so defined the Episcopal charac- 
ter, nor based on it any right whatever. 

But ifthey be enjoined and authorized in virtue of this commission 
and by this succession/to go into all the world, and this by divine 
authority, will my learned and reverend friends explain how all 
the world becomes suddenly, in their fourth proposition, narrowed 
down to “their Dioceses?” for most Dioceses, except the supposi- 
titious one of the Bishop of Rome, are somewhat less than the 
whole world. If God has authorized a Bishop as such, simply in 
virtue of his being a Bishop, to go into all the world, by what 
impious arrogance do they dare to fetter the freedom of God’s 
Apostles, and forbid them to exercise in all the world, everywhere, 
and at all times, powers which they say God has enjoined and 
authorized them to exercise everywhere? The article limits the 
legislative power of the Church by the qualification, “so that no- 
thing be ordained contrary to God’s word.” The canon forbids a 
Bishop to minister or assume jurisdiction beyond his Diocese. 
But the Bible, say the committee, “ enjoins and authorizes them to 
go into all the world.” So the canon forbids what the Bible com- 
mands. Is it wrong to conclude that this theory of the report is 
not the law of the Church? And if the canon can take away 
this right and duty of the Bishop, will they please to put their 
finger on the function it cannot arrest, or suspend, or deny ? 

2 


10 


I respectfully suggest that the limitation or the divine origin 
of the power must be abandoned. I leave them the option of a 
choice—indifferent in its results, whichever horn of the dilemma 
be chosen. 

If the divine origin be given up, the whole edifice crumbles to 
dust. Ifthe limitation to the Diocese cannot be maintained, then 
our whole ecclesiastical system is at once in fragments; there 
are no dioceses, parishes, nor special jurisdictions, but each per- 
son ministers when and where he will; there is no law, all is 
confusion, contradiction, and tumult; and, therefore, not the sys- 
tem of the Bible, which requires all things to be done decently 
and in order. No one can be arraigned for violating a diocesan’s 
rights, since no Diocese exists. 

If gentlemen insist on resting their rights on a theory, they 
must take its logical fruits. But not content with these arbitra- 
ry limitations of the premises, the conclusion is still too fruitful. 
It is clear that in this modern world theological theories will not 
be swallowed when they involve practical absurdities. The rea~ 
soning, then, proving a Bishop’s right to minister always and any- 
where in his Diocese, and that being plainly in conflict with the 
right of each Presbyter to preach and minister at all times in his 
respective Parish throughout the whole Diocese, the question is 
to reconcile them. 

And this notable expedient of a limping logic is the misshapen 
makeshift of an urgent necessity. The Bishop is confined in the 
exercise of his rights to the occasions of his going officially in 
his very Episcopal character in visitation of a parish; for which 
the sole proof is, “if he have it (i. e. the right) not then, he never 
has it.” But surely the reasoner has lost his head, or perhaps 
this is a specimen of reasoning in a non-natural sense. He has 
already proved a general right on his theory; but a general right 
involves an absurdity, and is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole 
theory, because in conflict with the parochial system which is 
established by express law, and so cannot be ignored. 

The difficulty now is, not to prove the right on oceasions of 
visitation, but to rescue the whole theory from overthrow and 
refutation, by proving that the general right is, from its own inhe~ 
rent nature confined, and bound down inseparably to those occa- 
sions of visitation. Surely for this purpose the remark, that “if 
the Bishop has it not then, he never has it,” is merely impertinent. 

The reasoning flounders on through assumption after assump- 
tion to an impotent conclusion. The Report says, if the Bishop 
have not the right to exercise the powers in controversy, then he 
never has it, and one of two conclusions must follow. (I bespeak 
the earnest attention of the reader tothe marchinto the Caudien 
forks.) “ Either the Bishop, as such, is not authorized to preach 
and administer the sacraments, er being so authorized, his author- 
ity is afterwards taken from him by the rubrics and canons which 
regulate that office.” 


il 


The argument is like a man in a bog—his struggles to get out 
only sink him the deeper. We now have the concession, that if 
he cannot exercise these so-called Episcopal functions at a visita- 
tion, he never can. I agree in that proposition; but what is the 
proof that he can then exercise them? Why, nothing less than 
an impotent attempt to show the absurdity of the contrary con- 
clusion. It is said to follow, either that the Bishop has no authori- 
ty as such, to preach, &c.; or having received it, he is deprived 
of it. But it has not yet been shown that the Bishop has, as such, 
the right to preach and administer the sacraments in another's 
parish, except on a theory which proves him to have it, not. on 
this occasion only, but always. And that involves as great an 
absurdity as the giving him the power to preach and administer 
the sacrament, and then take it away; for that is just what the 
Church is made to do, on that hypothesis, to the parochial Minis- 
ter ; the very power of ministration given to him, is also given to 
his superior—the Bishop. There seems little choice in the alter- 
natives, and little chance of escaping from both. 

The difficulties spring from their theory, not ours. We do not 
maintain any general power in the Bishop to preach and minis- 
ter in the parishes of his Diocese—which he is forbidden to exer- 
cise; least of all do we rely on the word “ Priest,” in the commu- 
nion service to prove it. We say that as Bishop he only receives 
the prerogatives peculiar to the Episcopate, to be exercised 
throughout his Diocese. The other capacities he received at or- 
dination; and now retains the capacity, to be exercised, not any 
where he may choose, but when and where the laws of the Church 
provide for theer exercise, and not elsewhere, to the invasion of 
the parochial rights of the other clergy. 

We have now traced the reasoning of the report to its conclu- 
sion, and found it empty and worthless. 

It starts with the assumption, as an axiom, of an ineffable mys- 
tery, disputed and denied by the carnal minds of at least a con- 
siderable portion of the Church—not recognised in her formularies, 
canons, or articles—and so no source whence the laws of the 
Church can be inferred. 

It arbitrarily limits the conclusion to which the first and second 
propositions necessarily lead—(i. e.) the universality of the Epis- 
copal power—for that conclusion would be in direct conflict with 
our established system of Dioceses; and so is proved not to be the 
law of our Church, however true. 

It then deduces the universal right of the Bishop to minister in 
in his Diocese, and in every part of it—legitimately from the pre- 
mises narrowed as above stated. 

But this is in dire conflict with the parochial system; and so 
false, as the statement of the laws of our Church, unless some 
principle of limitation can be discovered. 

Such a limitation is asserted to exist in the confinement of 
these general rights to the times of visitation; but no Jaw so con- 


12 


fining it is shown, no reason is stated why, from the nature of the 
thing they should not be exercised at other times; and in the ab- 
sence of such reason, it is not competent, arbitrarily, to say the 
exercise of the right, proved to exist generally, is so confined. It 
may be very proper that the Bishop should have the right of ex- 
ercising these powers when on a visitation; but its propriety and 
expediency do not tend in the most remote degree to prove its ex- 
istence in point of fact, still less do they prove it to be confined by 
law to those occasions. 

The argument then, has signally failed in every thing—except 
in refuting itself. 

That result flows from the fact, conceded by the committee, ap- 
parent on the face of the written laws of the Church, and known as 
a fact to every intelligent layman in the Church, of the existence of 
Parishes, and of the right of the parishioners to select their minister, 
and of the right of that Minister to manage and control the minis- 
tration of the word and sacraments on all occasions of publie pa- 
rochial worshp in his parish; and the consequent inconsistency of 
the existence of any right in point of law, in any other person to 
do the same thing in the same place, at the same time, to his ea- 
clusion. But the parochial system and these rights of the paro- 
chial Priest so to minister, are expressly set down in the laws of the 
Church. The right claimed for the Bishop is not so set down and 
expressed in any formal enactment. If it were so, we might be 
bound to receive it, and get along as we could till the evil of 
conflicting laws should be remedied. But it is attempted to be 
deduced from a doubtful theory of Episcopal rights, and a histori- 
eal disquisition on the Episcopacy of the early Church, bound 
into an argument by the assertion of the identity of our Episco- 
pacy with that, except so far as limited by the parochial system. 
The theory is not affirmed in any law or formulary of the Church ; 
and the inference from it is entirely inconsistent with the paro- 
chial system which ts plainly set down in our laws, and known to 
exist in fact among us; and by virtue of that inconsistency we are 
bound, judging the unknown by the known, the theory by the con- 
flicting fact, the supposed and hypothetical law by the plainly 
written and recognised law, to adhere to the parochial system, 
and pronounce the conclusion from an historical theory, which 
is inconsistent in its results with that known law, to be false and 
unfounded as a proof, or a statement of the law of the Church,— 
as a rotten foundation for the right rested on it. 

But where is the fallacy of the argument? Has the Bishop 
no powers in his diocese! and if he has any, what are they, 
whence derived, and how defined ? 

The fallacy consists in adroitly or blunderingly confounding the 
capacity or competency of order, or, as Taylor calls it, “a capa- 
city of possibility,” to perform certain functions, with a right to 
perform them at a given time or place. The error is aggravated 
by attempting to deduce from the capacity, thus confounded with 
the right, and an assumed necessity of time and place for its ex- 


13 


ercise, that it is to be exercised at a particular time; when the 
same elements would equally well prove a right to exercise the 
capacity at any other time and place. 

The argument proceeds on an entirely erroneous view of the 
theory and nature of our Church government, as laid down 1n its 
articles, canons, rubrics, and formularies of service and worship. 

It is vitiated by attempting to deduce from the history of other 
Church societies, supposed to be similar to ours, the laws of our 
own, instead of turning to our written laws for their declarations, 
and trying the historical hypothesis by them. 

The argument paiters in a double sense with the “ Apostolical 
suecession”—true, in so far as it imports that Bishops have gov- 
erned the Church since the Apostles ceased to do so, in part— 
false, if made to imply that the power so to govern flows through 
that channel of succession; and it quibbles with the word 
“Church,” which in our laws means our particular organization, 
but in the committee’s use of it, involves the assertion of the 
identity, in point of organization, between our Church and the 
early Church as one society, and the binding effect of all the 
canons of all the ancient Churches upon us, with all their contra- 
dictions and absurdities, and antiquated customs. 

Now, I repudiate all such double-faced arguments—all claims 
of mystical descent of Apostolical power—all such histerical hy- 
pothesis of organic identity, as a basis for an inquiry into the 
comparatively simple matter, What are the powers which the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, for the Dio- 
cese of Maryland, confers upon, and recognizes in, her Bishops, 
Priests, and Deacons? 

Her doctrines, discipline, and organization, she affirms to be 
consistent with the Bible; and her discipline and organization are 
partly deduced from it—partly the result of lawful legislative 
power. 

But what her discipline, and organization, and doctrines are, 
cannot be known otherwise than by her articles, which alone de- 
fine her views of the meaning of the Bible—by her formularies 
of worship, which illustrate and embody, in a practical form, the 
worship flowing from her doctrines—and from her constitution 
and canons, which contain her mode of vesting and enforcing 
the ecclesiastical and ministerial powers considered by her pro- 
per to be established. 

Now, though this Church may establish or recognize any offi- 
ces or orders, yet that will not involve, unless it be expressed, any 
theory of the nature or limits of their authority. For her chil- 
dren, their authority is what she gives them or declares them to have. 
She may so give or declare in obedience to a higher law, or sim- 
ply because she so thinks expedient to organize her government ; 
but the bestowal does not involve either reason or theory for the act. 
Her members may view the institution differently—some as divine, 
others as human, in its origin—as mutable or immutable in its 
nature; but if the Church has not declared her views in an au- 
thentic and legal form, they are no part of her laws, no part of 


14 


the office instituted, no criterion of its powers or its duties in her 
eye, nor of its right over her inferior officers. 

The view of our Church constitution and laws is, that her arti- 
cles contain a full exposition of her creed, for which alone she is 
responsible; her rubrics and formularies define and exemplify 
her worship, and distribute to her Ministers their respective shares 
of those services; and her laws, and constitution, and articles de- 
fine the powers of her officers. They may not settle the question 
of the origin. or the nature of those powers or rights; but what- 
ever the origin or nature, whatever may be the capacity of pos- 
sibility inherent in the order, or involved in its name, as used in 
other Church organizations, the right and prerogative she chooses 
to annex to it can be found, and authoritatively determined by 
her laws and articles alone. The Church speaks in her law, not 
in the views and opinions of those of her members who may hap- 
pen to have passed it. Her articles, as well as the powers she 
ascribes to her officers, may be erroneous ; but that does not make 
them the less her law, still less does it authorize what others may 
think the better view, as her law—till she has changed her arti- 
cles. The remedy for the evilis not to declare she does teach what 
she does not teach, because she ought so to teach. The remedy is 
much easier and more simple. Those who do not like the teach- 
ings of her communion can get out of az. The illuminati of the 
succession need not mourn the hardships of the flight, for the road 
to Rome is smooth, straight, of gentle inclination, grateful to the 
tender feet of recent proselytes, and very short. 

Now, what is the capacity of possibility of the Bishops of our 
Church, and what are their rights to exercise that capacity as to 
time and place ! 

The canon Ist says, there shall always be three orders in the 
ministry, viz: Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 

But this does not define what are the respective capacities, nor 
the relative rights of these orders. Congress may declare that 
the army of the United States shall consist of privates, lieuten- 
ants, captains, majors, colonels, and generals; but if it stopped 
there no body could divine their relative right by an inquiry into 
the military laws of England or of Rome. 

The canon propounds no theory of the origin or nature of these 
orders, and the article is equally and wisely silent ; contenting itself 
with affirming the doctrine of common sense, that no one can take 
on himself the office of public preacher or ministering the sacra- 
ment, unless lawfully called; and it declares a person to be law- 
fully called who is chosen by men who have public authority 
given them zn the congregation to call and send Ministers. 

If called or chosen by persons having public authority in the 
congregation, it suffices, and the Church has not tangled itself 
with the questions of Apostolical succession, nor with any theory 
as to where the power resides to make the call. 

The next step, after declaring the number of orders and the 
principle on which public authority should be conferred in the 


15 


Church, was not to say that the Apostolical succession was pait 
of the law of the Church; but simply to declare that a complete 
order of Bishops existed de facto in this Church, in the persons of 
Bishops White, and Seabury, and Provost. 

Having declared them to be Bishops of this Church, did the 
Convention of 1789 stop there, and leave their powers to doubt- 
ful disputation, to theoretic deductions from a fabulous succes- 
sion, to mysterious effusions from Episcopal fingers in the pro- 
cess of ordination, or the saintly and patriarchal moderation of 
our right reverend fathers? Oh, no! more explicit than even the 
Constitution of the United States on the Executive power, they 
carefully declare the competency of those Bishops to every pro- 
per act and duty of the Episcopal office in these United States, 
(and then proceeding to define and enumerate those acts and du- 
ties,) as well in respect to the consecration of other Bishops and the 
ordering of Priests and Deacons, as for the government of the 
Church, according to such rules, canons, and institutions as Now 
ARE, or hereafter may be duly made and ordained by the Church 
IN THAT CASE. 

Nothing but perversity and blindness, or vaulting ambition, can, 
through or round, or over that canon, deduce any r7ght in our Bish- 
ops to perform any act or duty of the Episcopal office not enume- 
rated in that canon, or in some other canon of this Church, then or 
since passed. They derive the right to ordain in this Church, not 
from their consecration, for that would equally entitle the Bishop 
of Rome to impose on us his Priests,—for surely hzs orders are un- 
questionable ;—but from the first resolution which adopts them as 
the persons to fill the first of the three orders which the Conven- 
tion had declared should always exist in our Church; and from 
the second resolution which enumerates the “capacities of pos- 
sibility ” of our Bishops, and defines the rule according to which 
alone that capacity should develope itself into act, according to 
the existing or future canons, rules, and institutions made and or- 
dained by the Church ; not according to the canons of the “early 
church ;” not according to the inherent claims to be minister of the 
word and sacraments and rulers of the Church; from no such sources, 
by no such authority, but according to the canons, rules, and in- 
stitutions made and ordained by the Church in that case. Without 
a law they were powerless, They could not ordain unless it were 
according to a law made and ordained by the Church in that case— 
that is, for that express purpose; for till the law existed no one 
could act according to it, and they had no right to act but accord- 
ing to it. 

“The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the 
United States of America,” said the Constitution. Executive 
power was a term as well known as Episcopal power; it was 
coeval with government, and essential to civil society ; but no- 
body thought of ascertaining the President’s powers from the 
Executive power of the Roman Republic or the English Mon- 


16 


archy. Yet our Government, as well as those Governments, were 
civil societies, and quite as analogous in form as our Church and 
the Nacine or the early Church. And the connexion of our coun- 
try and government with that of England, and that of England 
with Imperial and Republican Rome, was quite as close and 
clear as that of our Church with that of England, and hers 
with those of Rome, Constantinople, or Antioch ; and these Na- 
tional Churches are the bodies our articles recognise as having 
the powers of independent legislation. It was plain that as the 
canon declared what should be the orders and grades of Minis- 
ters to exercise the powers to be conferred by the Church, so here 
the Constitution defined the person who should wield the powers 
that might be vested in the Executive. 

The second resolution vested the Bishops with a right they had 
not before—the right to act as Bishops of this Church, and bound 
‘them to act according to law—the laws of this Church. The 
Constitution of the United States, less suspicious and cautious, 
said the President shall see that the laws shall be faithfully exe- 
cuted; but how? According to his will and pleasure, by virtue 
of metaphysical deductions from the nature of government and 
Executive power? Might he bastinado a refractory chargé, or 
bowstring an insolent clerk? For in either of those modes he 
might see that the laws be executed. No! he could only execute 
the laws by the laws, in the mode and with the powers they point- 
ed out. He was declared commander of the army and navy ; he 
thus had a capacity of possibility ; but it did not follow that there 
must be an army for him to command, nor if there were one, that 
he could command it to suppress a rebellion, though rebellion 
was preventing the execution of the laws, unless Congress gave 
him by law the right so to exercise his constitutional capacity to 
command the army for that purpose. 

Maryland was even more explicit to the same effect. She, 
while yet destitute of a Bishop, and while resolving that she 
would have one, carefully declared what powers he should have. 
She declared it one of her fundamental principles that the office 
of a Bishop in this Church shall be to ordain Priests and Deacons, 
to administer the Apostolical right of confirmation, to have pre- 
eminence in ecclesiastical affairs, to preside in conventions, and 
to have the right of visiting and superintending the parishes with- 
in his diocese or district. This was finally adopted in 1790, and 
was a slight modification of the fundamental principle of 1784. 

The question I am now discussing is not the quantity of power 
conferred on the Bishops or recognised as proper to be held by 
that order, but where the order derived its rights in the American 
Church? Whether from any inherent right flowing from conse- 
cration, or from the laws and canons of our Church? And it is 
perfectly plain that while all our laws and constitutions are 
silent as to any such inherent capacity of possibility, they are all 
explicit in defining the nature of the officer called by them Bishop ; 


17 


and they all confer his powers by law, expressly defining and enu- 
merating them, leaving nothing to flow from any inherent reser- 
voir of Episcopal power supposed to be filled up through the long 
and leaky drain of Apostolical succession. They were justly sus- 
picious of the purity of any stream whose only channel for cen- 
turies had lain through the cloace of Papal Rome. They some- 
times speak of and define what they considered to be the true 
model of the Episcopacy as they supposed it established by the 
Apostles ; but they never leave the powers of the office to be de- 
rived by succession from that source, nor hy any undefined and 
inferential analogies, but setting down what they considered to 
have been the powers given the Bishops by the Apostles, they 
give similar powers to their Bishops. 

Having thus defined the nature and powers of the Episcopal 
office, we must turn to the canons, and rubrics, and formularies 
of worship, to ascertain how each of the orders was disposed of, 
what were their relations, and how their “capacities of possibili- 
ty” could legally be exercised. 

We have seen that Bishops were the persons in whom our 
Church vested the capacity to ordain exclusively; the right to 
ordain, that is the right to wield the power bestowed zn this 
Church, flowed from and could only be exercised according to the 
canons. The Bishop had also a capacity of possibility to confirm 
and to preach, and to minister the sacrament, and to rule, and the 
Presbyter had likewise a capacity of order, or of possibility, to 
perform the three last functions of ministerial power ; but till the 
laws, the canons, had given them a rule according to which, and 
a place in which, they could act, they could not act at all; the 
law of this Church recognized no inherent right to exercise any 
function by any rule, and from any source of authority, other than 
according to her laws made in the case. 

We have seen the Maryland Church asserting in her funda- 
mental principles, her right to define, and actually defining, the 
powers of her Bishops; and on the organization of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States, of which Maryland be- 
came a Diocese, that Church defines in analagous terms that 
office, and expressly confines the exercise of the powers it recog- 
nizes and allows, to a strict conformity to the laws of the Church 
in the particular case. A general and supreme constitution was 
established in 1789, but no theory of the nature, or origin, or lim- 
its of the ministerial functions, according to which they were to 
be expounded or deduced, was adopted or enacted as that of the 
Church. The most opposite and irreconcilable views are known 
to have been held by the persons who formed, and the States 
which concurred in, the general constitution of 1789. They 
agreed on the orders they would recognize, but not why they did 
so. They concurred ina given distribution of spiritual functions, but 
were diametrically opposed as to the reasons of it. They agreed 
in the expediency of obtaining ordination and consecration of their 

3 


18 


Bishops from England, but not on the reasons rendering it expe- 
dient, still less did they agree with the theory which asserted, or 
assumed, the necessity of Episcopal consecration to the existence 
of a perfect Episcopate. They agreed in allowing the Bishops to 
have certain exclusive capacities, and also in not allowing those 
capacities of order to be exercised otherwise than according 
to the canons and constitution of this Church: but they did 
not assert, or admit, that those functions could not be otherwise 
vested. ; . 

To ascertain the canonical rights of our Bishops, we must there- 
fore look to the canons and constitution. 

Though the Bishops of the English Church are certainly regu- 
larly consecrated Bishops, and so have the capacity to ordain or 
confirm, yet they have no righé to perform those functions in our 
Church. But our Bishops, having only the same capacities of 
order, have also the right to exercise them within our Church ; 
and our constitution assumes the right to allow the one and to 
forbid the other. It is therefore because the canons of our Church 
authorize our Bishops to exercise their functions in our Dioceses, 
that they can do so; and not by reason of their order. It may 
be—I do not say that it is—but it may be that it is not compe- 
tent for a Church to vest even a competency to perform certain 
acts in persons not ordained in a certain way; but it is certain, 
beyond dispute, that the possession of that “competency of possi- 
bility” does not involve, nor does it bestow, the right to exercise 
it in our Church. That flows solely from our canons giving the 
right ; and consequently the right to exercise the power stops 
with its source, the canon law of the Church. 

The declaration of the powers, or capacities, of Bishops in the 
American Church, and especially in the Diocese of Maryland, 
lay at the bases of the whole ecclesiastical structure; they are 
the fundamental principles on which rests the edifice. The Bishop 
is to exercise the functions which our canons recognize as within 
the scope of its idea of the Episcopal office, “according to such 
rules, canons, and institutions, as now are, or hereafter may be, 
duly made and ordained by the Church in that case.” 

The only question that remains, is, what canons, rules, or insti- 
tutions, have been duly made by the Church in this case? 

The constitution and canons have first arranged the territory 
of the Church into Dioceses and Parishes. To the former, it has 
assigned Bishops as the corresponding officer; to the latter, Pres- 
byters. 

The capacities of the Bishop are first limited territorially. He 
is required to confine the exercise of his Episcopal office to his 
proper Diocese. Const., Art. IV. 

The officiating of the clergymen—that is, the right to put in 
action their “ capacity of possibility,” in the awkward but accu- 
rate phrase of 'aylor—is territorially limited to his parish or 
parochial cure. Canon xxxi, 1832. 


19 


But a Parish or parochial cure is a part of a Diocese in our 
system. Every Parish is contemplated as part of a Diocese. The 
Bishop is the Church officer for the Diocese, the Priest for the 
Parish. The question is, to solve the relations between them. 

Parishes were unknown in the early Church; it is therefore 
folly to seek in its history any solution of the problem. The 
early Churches settled the rights of the Bishops to exercise their 
powers or capacities of order, with reference to the Diocese con- 
sidered as an unit, and to his powers as exclusive and absolute. 

Our Church has adjusted the rights of the Bishop with a view 
to the rights and duties of the Parish Priest; and whatever it 
has bestowed as a right on the one, it has necessarily excluded 
from the other. 

It does not even contemplate reghts as vested in either Bishops 
without a Diocese, or Priests without a Parish. It never assigns 
duties to either order, unless possessed of a cure within which 
they may be exercised. It has nothing to do with Priests at large ; 
it forbids their creation.—Canon xix, 1832. 

The relative rights and duties of these two orders, and these 
two jurisdictions of the Diocese and the Parish, are defined with 
the utmost precision in the canons, and in the formularies and 
rubrics adopted by them. 

The Presbyter having a Parish has the sole and exclusive right 
to perform the functions of a Presbyter in that Parish, according 
to the canons. But the Bishop has a like exclusive right to exer- 
cise all his exclusively and peculiarly Episcopal functions or 
powers of capacity in every part of his Diocese. The Episcopal 
prerogatives, distinctively belonging to the Bishop, being not pos- 
sessed at all by the Priest, can never come in conflict with his 
rights. 

If the Bishop confine himself to confirmation, ordination, and 
supervision, according to the modes prescribed by the canons, 
collision is impossible. 

But the Bishop has, besides his exclusively Episcopal capaci- 
ties of order, also the same capacities of order with the Priest, 
the power or capacity to preach, to minister in the word, and to 
administer the sacraments. The question is, when, and where, 
and how has he a canonical right to exercise these capacities. 

I say, only when and where the canons, and rubrics, and for- 
mularies give him the right todo so. If they have assigned all 
times and places for those functions to others, they have excluded 
him; and if they have not provided him with a time and place, 
a sphere and opportunity, to exercise those functions which he had 
while a priest, he has no right, no canonical right, to exercise 
them. It is to be inferred, that on his elevation to the Episcopate, 
the Church presumed him to be devoted to, and occupied by, its pe- 
culiar duties and rights, and substituted in the place he left some 
other Priest. It did not appoint him Brshop for the purpose of 
his exercising the functions of a mere Priest. And, indeed, while 


20 


the canon seems to contemplate the Bishop’s retaining some pecu- 
liar parochial charge when it can be done, yet in this Diocese it 
has been found expedient to relieve the Bishop from any special 
charge, solely for the reason that his Episcopal functions de- 
mand and absorb his time.—Resolution Md. Con. 1839. 

But in reality there is no such universal exclusion of the 
Bishop from the right to exercise all his ministerial func- 
tions. They are only appropriated to certain times and places, 
or left to their proper field, the speezal parochial cure which the 
Church presumes him to have, where not engrossed by his Epis- 
copal duties.—Canon xxv, 18382. 

The canons and the prayer book carefully distribute among the 
different orders of the ministry all the services and rights which 
the Church has seen fit to recognize or create. 

The starting point is the office of institution, the formal legal 
mode of entering on the rights of a Parish Priest in pursuance of 
the election. ‘Till then the Priest has a capacity of order to per- 
form generally the functions of a Priest; but he has no right to 
perform them. Not but that he may, if requested by another 
Priest having a Parish, exercise them in that Parish, for that is 
not exercising them by virtue of his right, but by virtue of the 
right and permission of the other. Upon institution, or some 
other less formal accession to the incumbency of a Parish, the 
Priest becomes a Parish Priest, having cure of souls; and to that 
relation the law annexes the right to exercise the functions for 
which he became capacitated by the laws of the Church at his 
ordination. 

The office of institution, and the letter of institution, are the 
best expositors of those rights, together with the canons more 
specifically defining them. [| shall confine my remarks and quo- 
tations to the letter. 

The style of the letter is that of a commission toa civil or 
military office : “ We, by these presents, give and grant unto you, 
&c., &c., our license and authority to perform the office of a 
Priest in the Parish of E, and hereby do institute you into said 
Parish, possessed of full power to perform every act of sacerdotal 
function among the people of the same—you continuing in com- 
munion with us, and complying with the rubrics and canons of 
this Church, and such lawful directions as you shall at any time 
receive from us.” He is then reminded that he is “faithfully to 
feed” the flock committed to him, and that he is accountable “to 
us here,” and God hereafter. 

It then proceeds: “We authorize you to claim and enjoy all 
the accustomed temporalities, &c., till a separation by common 
consent of Priest and people, or at the pleasure of one subject to 
the arbitrament of the Bishop, with the advice of his Presbyters.” 

This commission is not an emanation of Episcopal prerogative, 
but the form of commission prescribed and enacted by the canons 
of 1804 and 1808, as the law of the Church. The Bishop gets 


21 


his whole power from that enactment, and without it could not 
institute at all. 

It was suggested, with great simplicity, that the language of 
the letter imported a license and authority flowing from the 
Bishop, which, it was inferred, he could control or revoke in 
whole or in part at his pleasure. But “give and grant” import 
an irrevocable bestowal of the right; the ¢enure is, till a volun- 
tary dissolution of the relation between Minister and people, 
which, therefore, cannot be controlled by the Bishop; and the 
language is just of equivalent import to a civil commission, be- 
stowing authority on the officers of the United States, whose func- 
tions the President, like the Bishop, is authorized to bestow, but 
not to exercise. The Bishop is the officer of the law to give to 
the Minister instituted the rights which the law had prescribed, 
and nothing more. To their credit be it spoken, none of the 
“learned” members of the Convention countenanced, otherwise 
than by their silence, so preposterous a pretence. 

“ Every act of sacerdotal function” is expressly set down in the 
formularies and rubrics of the prayer book, or the canons of the 
Church. 

These functions are threefold: the right of public instruction ; 
the right to conduct the public worship and minister the sacra- 
ments; the right to govern his Parish, according to the laws. 

For the first purpose, the law gives him the control of the pul- 
pit of his Parish. Other modes of instruction are equally open to 
him and others. The right to preach now in our Church is insep- 
arable from the relation of Parish Priest. In the early times, 
after the Reformation, no Parish Priest in England could preach 
unless by the special license of the Bishop—another instance of 
the Church’s stultification, in the opinion of the committee, I pre- 
sume, in giving in the office of ordination these powers, and the 
moment the ordination is complete, taking them away again by 
the canons. Entertaining a more respectful consideration for the 
wisdom of the Church, I respectfully suggest that the stultification, 
in either case, results from the committee’s confounding power or 
capacity of order, with a legal right to exercise that capacity. 

The second is provided for in the various forms of public wor- 
ship, and administration of the sacraments, explained and applied 
to their appropriate occasions by the rubrics, all of which are 
contained in the prayer book ; and this prayer book every Minister 
is expressly commanded by the canon (xlv, 1832) to use; and 
he is prohibited from using any other prayer than it contains. 

Our Church recognizes or has no other prayer, no other form of 
worship or thanksgiving, no other rite or ceremony, no other cele- 
bration of public worship of any sort, or on any occasion, than 
those expressly provided for in the canons, or the prayer book, 
which is itself prescribed by a canon. If any other form be used, 
she is not responsible for it; she does not sanction it. She has 
only confided a special and limited authority to her Bishops to 


22 


“compose prayers or thanksgivings for extraordinary occasions,” 
and “forms of prayer to be used before legislative and other pub- 
lic bodies.”—Canon xlvii, 1832. Whatsoever is more than this 
is usurpation. The last article but one of the constitution is 
explicit in its declaration that there shall be a book of common 
prayer, administration of the sacraments, and other rites and cere- 
monies of the Church, articlesof religion, and a form and manner 
of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
cons; and that no alteration or addition shall be made in that 
book, or other offices or articles, unless proposed in one and adopt- 
ed in another General Convention.—Const., Art. viii. Her forms 
of worship and sacramental administration are there; the rules 
which shall guide and control the doctrinal instructions and 
preaching of her clergy are in her articles; and her offices of or- 
dination and consecretion define the person and the theatre for 
the performance of those acts of sacerdotal function. None of 
her officers are allowed to step beyond that book, and invoke the 
authority of the Church to sanction the act. 

The letter of institution confers the right of performing the 
“acts of sacerdotal function” within the Parish. The ordination 
service illustrates and enforces it. The candidate is required to 
promise “always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and 
the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this 
Church hath received the same, &c. &c., “ so that you may teach 
the people committed to your cure or charge with all diligence to 
keep and observe the same,” and “to use both public and private 
monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, 
within your cure, as need shall require,” &c. 

These pledges being exacted, the office bestows “ authority to 
execute the office of a Priest in the Church of God now committed 
to you,” &c., and then the former clause having bestowed the 
general powers of a Priest, the Church bestows “authority to 
preach the word of God, and to minister the holy sacraments, in 
the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed therete.” 

Thus, the ordination service vests the Priest, viewed as a Parish 
Priest, with the authority to minister the word and sacraments m 
the congregation to which he may be lawfully appointed, and not 
elsewhere. The institution pursuant to electioa is the lawful 
appointment to the particuiar Parish, within which he thenceforth 
has the right to exercise his authority to preach and minister the 
sacraments ; and the rubrics prescribe what he shall read, what 
prayer he shall say, what forms he shall observe. And the Bible 
read by the articles is the rule of his preaching, as the rubrics and 
formularies are the rules of his prayer and thanksgiving, in this 
Church. 

If we turn to the prayer book we find first, certain forms of 
public prayer and thanksgiving. They are the only forms which 
any Minister can use for the specified occasions of public worship. 
But who has the right to use them? That is to say, the Church 


bo 


0 
oO 


having directed public worship to be held on given occasions, and 
prescribed a form for its celebration, who is the person she has 
appointed to celebrate it? It isplain there can be but one person 
so having the right, though thousands be present having the “ca- 
pacity of order” to celebrate those services. 

The occasion and the place determine the person according to 
the canons and the rubrics. There may be several occasions, 
leading to several and very opposite results. 

If it be the celebration of divine service in a Parish, and for 
parochial purposes, and in a parochial church, then the Parish 
Priest is the only person on whom our canons confer the right to 
lead the services. When the rubrics direct anything to be done 
by the Minister or the Priest on such occasions, they mean the 
Parish Minister—the Parish Priest, though he be a Bishop—for a 
person though a Bishop, may have the ore and the duties, and 
the rights of a Parish Hiriese’ 

If the Bishop formally gives notice that he will hold confirma: 
tion ina Parish at any specified time, the Rector is required to have 
his list of candidates, and to present them at the appointed time 
to the Bishop. Ifthere be none, the Bishop can do nothing. If 
there be any, he has the right and is bound to confirm them. 
This rite is to be performed according to the form and the rubrics 
of the prayer book, appropriated for that rite. He is bound to 
follow them. He is bound to stop where they stop—he dare not 
add a word to that service, for it would be in direct violation of 
the Constitution of the Church. The Church gives him the right 
to confirm, according to that form, such, and such only as any 
Parish Priest may have presented, in his Parish and of his congre- 
gation. But there the order of confirmation ceases, and that is all 
the canons and rubrics of the Church require or authorize him to do. 
If the daily prayers of the Parish be read, the Parish Priest is the 
person appointed to read them; if a sermon is to be preached, the 
law gives him the right to preach it; if he has given notice for 
the communion, the law makes him the rightful dispenser of its 
holy mysteries. That the Bishop may have chosen the time of 
divine service to administer the rite of confirmation, is no reason 
why he should oust the parochial Minister’s right to celebrate his 
ordinary worship. That time is not appointed by the rubric ; the 
concurrence of the daily prayer and the sermon with the confirmation 
is an accident, or an arbitrary arrangement. The daily prayer, the 
sermon, the communion, are not parts of the order of confirmation. 
They are not required even to be performed upon occasions of 
confirmation. It may be held at times not devoted to the ordinary 
public services of the daily prayer, or preaching, or administration 
of the communion ; and consequently, from their accidental cele- 
bration on the same occasion, no reason can be derived for depriv- 
ing the Parish Priest of the ‘right to conduct his own ordinary 
services as he would were there no confirmation. To take any 
other view is to add to the prayer book, contrary to the canon ; 


24 


for it is not more explicit in giving to the Bishop the power to 
confirm, than it is in declaring the Parish Priest entitled to direct 
all the ministrations of the word and sacraments—all acts of 
sacerdotal functions, within his cure or charge. If the canon had 
said the morning or evening prayer, or the communion shall be 
part of the order of confirmation, then the Bishop’s right would 
have been clear. The omission of any such declaration, the pro- 
hibition of any alteration or addition in the prayer book, and the 
fact that treating those parts of public worship as parts of the 
order of confirmation, would, in fact, both alter and add to it, 
prove that the Bishop has no right to treat them as parts of, or 
connected with it. 

It is true the Bishop has cure or charge throughout the whole 
Diocese ; but he has no parochial cure in any part of it under our 
system, as Bishop, without election, to a Parish; and therefore 
nothing in the prayer book referring to Parish Priests as such, 
that is as Priests having charge of a Parish, has any applica- 
bility to the Bishop, unless he have a Parish. He may, it is true, 
have charge of a Parish, and so be a Parish Priest; and then 
every duty and every right and every rubric appertaining to the 
Parish Priest, applies to and binds him. But the right to minis- 
ter in a Parish Church, to read to that Parish the daily service, to 
administer the sacraments there, is delegated to the person having 
charge of the Parish—not for any reason common to him and the 
Bishop—not because he has a capacity to minister in the word and 
sacraments, in which capacity the Bishop participates—but be- 
cause he has been elected and instituted as Priest of that Parish, 
which the Bishop has not been. 

It is true, as the committee say, the Bishop must exercise his 
Episcopal rights in his Diocese—his appointed field; his rights 
and duties are certainly co-extensive with his Diocese, and per- 
vade every part of it; but that does not prove that his Episcopal 
rights are to exclude at any time the Parish Minister, nor does it 
help us to determine what those rights are. Episcopal rights are 
one thing, the rights of parochial ministration are another. The 
possession of the one does not involve the other, nor does the ca- 
pacity to exert both involve the right at any given time or place 
to exercise either. 

The institution of a Minister is the conferring of the right to 
put in action the powers he derived from his ordination in a par- 
ticular sphere. The election and introduction of a Bishop toa 
Diocese are the essential prerequisites to his right to put in ac- 
tion his capacity, obtained at consecration, to perform the acts 
peculiar to the Episcopal office. 

The election and introduction to his Diocese does nothing more 
than give him the right of exercising his Episcopal functions. 
He is not thereby made Parish Priest of any Parish; he has no 
right to any glebe or parsonage, still less has he parochial cure 
of all the parishes of the Diocese. He may have all the capa- 
cities—he certainly acquires none of the rights of Parish Priest. 


25 


This is reluctantly conceded. But it is maintained that a 
“Bishop, 7x order to the exercise of his Episcopal functions, pos- 
sesses the right on occasion of canonical visitations to control 
the services, and to take to himself such part of them as he may 
think fit.” 

It is difficult to tell which way this cross-eyed resolution looks. 
If it mean that a right to control the services—that is, the whole 
services—is necessary to his performance of his Episcopal func- 
tions, and therefore he has the right, the inference is correct ; but 
the necessity is an unfounded assumption. 

In this Church we know nothing of a Bishop’s duties at a visi- 
tation except what the canon gives us. Prior to the Constitution 
there was no National American Church, nor any Bishop of Ma- 
ryland; and, consequently, no Bishop of this Church had any 
right of visitation. When our Constitution was formed and the 
canon passed, then the right of visitation existed, and its nature 
must appear from the law of its creation. 

The canon says, “ Every Bishop in this Church shall visit the 
churches within his Diocese, for the purpose of examining the 
state of his Church, inspecting the behavior of his clergy, and ad- 
ministering the apostolic rite of confirmation.” ' 

This is the whole purpose and object of the canonical visita- 
tion; the only visitation known to our laws. It is required to be 
made at least once in three years, and the Parish visited is requir- 
ed to defray the expenses of the Bishop. To enable the Bishop 
to make the visitation, the clergy are directed, in reasonable rota- 
tion, to officiate for him in any parochial duties which belong to 
him, and the Bishop is required to keep a register of his proceed- 
ings.—Canon xxv, 1882. 

The next canon defines the duties of the Minister of the visited 
Parish, in order to the exercise of the Episcopal functions on oc- 
casions of canonical visitations; and they are the only duties 
known to our laws which the Bishop can on such occasions exact, 
and those laws mention nowhere any other rights as essential to 
the due exercise of what the canons define to be the Episcopal 
rights at a canonical visitation. These duties are to prepare 
young persons for confirmation, and, when ready, to present them 
to the Bishop for confirmation; to give information to the Bishop 
of the state of the congregation; and when congregations can- 
not be conveniently visited in any year, the information of the 
state of the congregation is to be brought or sent to the Bishop 
a month before the Convention. 

Will my learned and reverend friends now favor me with a de- 
signation of the duty of the Bishop at a canonical visitation, to 
the exercise of which a right to control the services at public 
worship is necessary? Will it enable him the better to examine 
the state of the Church, to read prayers on Sunday ? or to inspect 
the behavior of his clergy, is aright to administer the communion 

4 


26 


himself at all conducive? or is the morning service any part of 
the order of confirmation ? or has the Bishop any other canonical 
function at a visitation? If there be any, the Church will feel 
instructed by its disclosure. The canons, the constitution, the 
rubrics, the consecration office, are alike and equally silent; and 
we are a little curious to know according to what canon, rule, or 
institution of this Church it is exercised. I respectfully suggest 
that any duty to which a control of the services is essential, or 
with which it is at all connected, is a figment of the commit- 
tees’ imagination. If they did not imagine one, then the words 
“in order to the exercise of his Episcopal functions” are an un- 
warranted insinuation of what was known not to exist. Or is it 
pretended that a part of the Episcopal functions, on a canonical 
visitation, is the administration of the Holy Communion? If such 
be the hypothesis, I wait for the proof. No canon, no rubric, no 
part of even the general commission of the consecration service 
makes it the right or the duty of a Bishop, upon a visitation, to 
read prayers, or to preach, or to administer the communion; and 
for the simple reason that the visitation is of a Parish already 
provided with a person whose r7ght and duty it is, by the express 
law of the Church, to discharge these very functions. There is 
no necessity for imposing on the Bishop the burden, nor for con- 
ferring on him the right to perform, on occasions of canonical 
visitations, any part of the duties already provided for and as- 
signed to a parochial officer. 

The Bishop’s duties are altogether of a different character. He 
is to confirm—for the Priest cannot do it. He is to inspect the 
conduct of the Priest, that he may properly rule his Diocese, cor- 
rect disorder, and watch neglect. He is to examine the state of 
the Church, that he may know its wants and necessities, its pro- 
gress or decline, in order to remedy the evil or promote the good. 
But the mere duties of a Parish Priest are no part of his duties 
as Bishop, at any time, least of all at a visitation. Will the 
prayer be uttered with more unction or fervor from his Episcopal 
lips? Or is it to be supposed, that the holy elements are more 
efficacious from his apostolic hands? Or is God, in adding his 
blessing to those his creatures, of bread and wine, for the first 
time, become a respecter of persons ? 

The Bishop has certainly a capacity for the performance of 
these functions; but the question is not as to the competency of 
his spiritual character, but whether they are part of his Episco- 
pal right on a visitation, or at any time. 

My view is, that the Bishop having on his ordination obtained 
the “capacity of order” to celebrate divine service, and to ad- 
minister the sacraments, retained that competency on his conse- 
cration as Bishop. He, then, retaining his former character as 
Priest, takes the additional character and functions of a Bishop ; 
but though he has a full competency from his order to exer- 
cise the functions both of Priest and of Bishop, yet his right to 


a4 


exercise the one or the other, or both, depends upon his being 
placed in a charge whose duties require the performance of one 
or the other, or both. 

The ordination service expressly enumerates and confers on 
the Priest the power or authority to preach the word of God, and 
to minister the holy sacraments, where lawfully appointed to do 
so. These, with the administration of discipline as provided in 
the canons, are the appropriate rights of the Priest, on institution 
to a Parish, and not before. 

The consecration service says nothing about either ; but, assu- 
ming the possession of those attributes, liable to be called into 
act by the accession to the cure to which they are appropriate, 
the service confines itself to a general conferring of the Holy 
Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop in the Church of God, and 
a general injunction—not to preach and minister the sacraments, 
but to give heed to reading, exhortation, and doctrine—to think- 
ing on things in the Bible—to administer discipline in mercy. 
The promises exacted do not in any case relate to the preaching 
or ministering of sacraments, but solely to his Episcopal capaci- 
ties, and to the spiritual exercises and cultivation of dispositions 
fit for his exalted station. He is required to promise to be faith- 
ful in ordaining, or sending, or laying hands upon, others; to be 
diligent in exercising such dicipline, as by the authority of God’s 
word, and the order of this Church, is committed to him; to 
drive away (not to introduce and foster) all erroneous and strange 
doctrines contrary to God’s word—matters appertaining plainly 
to the office of an overseer of others—the general executive guar- 
dian of the faith and purity of the Church and the ministry—not 
to the daily ministration of parochial duty. 

Thus generally vested with the Episcopal functions, and pro- 
vided with a Diocese, we turn to the canons and rubrics for the 
rules by which his powers become rights, his capacities of order 
are developed into act, by being placed in a charge or cure ap- 
propriate and necessary to wake them into activity. 

The only duties we find anywhere specified, are to ordain, to 
confirm, and to govern; but till a Diocese is obtained, they are 
all undeveloped capacities; when it is obtained, then the same 
Jaw which bestows it, and consecrated the Bishop, and exacted a 
vow of conformity to the doctrine, worship, and discipline of this 
Church, prescribes the rule in accordance with which alone he 
acquires a right, under our Church organization, to exercise his 
“capacities of order.” — 

First, he is to ordain; but not any body, nor any how, but only 
persons presented with certain specified qualifications ; and the 
mode of ordination, its forms, and services, are minutely speci- 
fied. They seem so contrived as to call into play almost every 
Spiritual capacity of the Bishop. 

The ordination services comprise the whole services ofthe Church, 
from the morning prayers to the sermon, together with the commu- 


28 


nion and the particular formalities of ordination or consecration 
themselves. None of the services partake of a merely ordinary and 
parochial character. They are expressly prescribed as incident to 
the eminently Episcopal acts of ordination and consecration. The 
morning prayer is directed to precede the act of ordination as part of 
that service, without which that service could not be performed ac- 
cording to the rubric. The communion is directed to be admin- 
istered on the occasion, and its omission would be against the 
rubric, and its celebration is essential to canonical completeness 
of the ceremony of ordination and consecration. A sermon is di- 
rected to follow the morning prayer, and in the case of ordination, 
its topics and purposes are indicated in the rubric, and therefore 
the sermon is a part of the prescribed service and formalities on 
occasion of ordination and consecration. The rubrics contem- 
plate the Bishops, or some of them, officiating throughout. Every 
thing that takes place is an incident to their official duty. It can- 
not be left to rest upon the arrangements, the convenience, the 
caprice, the discretion of another. It has no relation to, nor any 
connexion with, parochial duties, or the rights of a Parish Priest. 
The Bishop is then not merely present in his very Episcopal char- 
acter—(I should like to know how he gets out of that character, or 
is it only lawn deep?) that he carries with him always and every 
where ; but he is performing an “ Episcopal function,” “in order to 
the performance of” which the right to control the services is ab- 
solutely essential; nay, by the prayer book those services, and 
that sermon, and that communion, are parts of the series of form- 
alities prescribed by the laws of the Church for the creation and 
admission of her Ministers. They all together form that high and 
solemn act of purifying and setting apart a child of earth from 
the things of the world, that he may exemplify the religion whose 
purity he preaches. It is this intimate and inherent connexion 
between all these services and the performance of the Episcopal 
function of ordination, it is because the Church has prescribed 
them all as parts of one solemn formality, whose performance is 
solely delegated to the Bishop, that the Bishop has the right, on 
this occasion, to exercise and put into act, his power to celebrate 
the service and sacraments, to control and direct the worship and 
the sermon. 

It can with no truth be said, that unless the Bishop have the 
power of controlling the services at a canonical visitation, the 
Church has “stultified” herself by conferring capacities whose 
exercise she has forbidden. For in the consecration service she 
does not confer any of the capacities peculiar to the priesthood, 
but only those essential to the Episcopate ; and if no other expla- 
nation appeared, it would be reasonable to say that those priestly 
capacities were henceforth left without an appointed field, because, 
elevated to a higher sphere, and having provided a different order 
of men for the performance of those functions, the capacity to 
perform them was left to slumber, without any special Episcopal 


29 


field to exercise them in, because they did not pertain to any duty 
of the Episcopal office. If the Bishop should become the incum- 
bent of a parochial cure, then they would awake into life, within 
the appointed sphere for their exercise. 

But this is not the case. There are peculiarly Episcopal func- 
tions which necessarily evoke these priestly capacities, and then 
the Bishop has, by the laws of the Church, and in his character of 
Bishop, and by virtue of his office, a right to exercise his power of 
celebrating the worship and sacraments of the Church. 

This is in accordance with his Episcopal dignity and character, 
within the plain letter of the law, relieves the Church from the 
imputed “stultification,” and exempts the parochial system from 
being left at the mercy of Episcopal discretion—or only saved by 
an illogical and arbitrary arrest of a conclusion short of its legiti- 
mate end. Stay there it would not. An anomaly is always 
worrying to logical minds. When the principle is once settled in 
men’s minds, the tendency of human reason is to develope all its 
logical results; and so strong is that tendency, that it is to be 
feared that even the eminent moderation, the reluctance to assume 
undelegated power, the repugnance to invade the rights and con- 
trol the discretion of others, which now so adorn the character of 
our Right Reverend Father, and for which Mr. Evans so justly 
eulogizes him, might be entangled by the sophistry of the times, 
and borne on by the current with a multitude to do evil. It is 
safer to settle the law on valid principles, and then leave it free 
to run its course and be glorified. This view of the canonical 
constitution of our Church is illustrated on every page of its ru- 
bries and its canons. 

It is not true that the right of the Bishop to take the adminis- 
tration of the communion into his own hands is denied on the 
ground, “that in the ordinary communion office the Minister is 
usually described as Priest.” It is denied because the right is in- 
cident to a parochial cure, which the Bishop has not. The lan- 
guage of the office illustrates, but is not the foundation proof of 
the principle. “The Minister,” is the usual designation of the 
officiating person in the rubrics. But the question is, what Min- 
ister is meant. It is sometimes varied, and Priest or Bishop sub- 
stituted, when their peculiar functions are in question, and it is 
desired to signify the fact. But whether the word Priest or Min- 
ister be used, in neither case does it contemplate a Priest or a 
Minister at large, without a cure. The rubric is the law of the 
Church speaking, not to wayfarers, or stragglers into her desk or 
pulpit ; not to Bishops casually and unofficially present at public 
worship, nor to Ministers preaching and praying for pastime; but 
when the rubric imposes a duty on “the Minister,” it means the 
Minister of the Parish having canonical charge of its concerns, be 
he Priest or Bishop by order. When it speaks of the Bishop, it 
means the Bishop of the Diocese present on duty, in his very 
Episcopal character; the law takes no notice of his presence in 


30 


any other character. If among the crowd of hearers, it would 
scarcely summon him to the altar to partake in the services. 

The meaning of the rubric of the communion office is, then, 
that the Parish Priest—not any Priest—not necessarily one who 
is merely a Priest—but the person having the functions of the 
Priestly order, and charged with the Parish or cure where the 
sacrament is being celebrated, exclusively charged with the right 
of admission to that holy sacrament, and of repelling the unwor- 
thy from its participation, is the person who, in the Parish, is 
alone charged with its administration. The Minister is to give 
warning of its administration, which implies a permanent incum- 
bent; the alms and oblations, in a basin provided by “the Parish,” 
are to be brought to the Priest (i. e. of the Parish ;) for by canon 
(lii., 1835,) the alms at the communion are required to be deposited 
with the Minister of the Parish; the Minister is to give notice of 
the bans of matrimony, of fast and holy days, and other matter 
to be published, all which relate to the permanent Priest of the 
Parish, who alone could be informed officially of most of them. 
Atter the sermon, which of course is supposed to be preached by 
the Parish Priest, the rubric says he shall return and begin the 
offertory, é&c., which shows that the same person throughout, the 
Parish Priest, is meant by the Priest, or “the Mimster.” This 
would seem to settle the question. If the rubric make no provi- 
sion for the celebration of the communion by any but the Parish 
Priest, the Bishop, not being such, cannot have the right, by vir- 
tue of any presence, to take it out of his hands; for that would 
be to prevent the Parish Priest from doing what the law enjoined 
on him. But the rubric is not silent—it excludes the claim of 
the Bishop. It contemplates his presence—of course his official 
presence—for it imposes a duty on him; but that duty involves 
the right of the Parish Priest, in spite of his presence, to perform 
his official duty. The final blessing is directed to be said by the 
Priest—of course the Parish Priest; but if the Bishop be present, 
the rubric directs that he shall pronounce the final blessing. The 
language is general—it embraces every presence of a Bishop of- 
ficially at parochial service; it gives him one right and imposes 
one duty on him whenever present at the parochial service, and 
thereby excludes every other; and further to confirm this view, 
the rubric directs the Parish Priest first to receive the communion 
himself, and then administer it to the Bishops, Priests, and Dea- 
cons, and others present. The Priest in charge of the Parish re- 
tains his precedence and right, in the discharge of his ministry, 
in spite of the presence of his ecclesiastical superior “in his very 
Episcopal character,” save in the single instance excepted by the 
rubric. The committee have entangled themselves in their old 
ambiguity. They cannot learn that the laws are not talking 
theories. They cannot remember that the gist of the argument 
is not, that the words Priest and Bishop designate different or- 
ders, and that the Priest, in virtue of his order, is appointed by 


31 


the rubric to administer the communion; but that the Church 
speaks, without reference to the order, to the person in charge of 
the Parish as the one only entitled to administer this sacrament 
there in the regular parochial worship, and calls him Priest as 
well as Minister, since nothing lower than a Priest has authority 
to administer the communion; and that phrase would as well in- 
clude a person who, while Bishop of the Diocese, also had a pa- 
rochial charge, and so was a Parish Priest. He would need no 
new form; for it speaks of the Minister and the Priest, meaning 
in both cases the Minister of the Parish, and such he is as well 
as Bishop. It is defining him not by his order, but by his relation 
to his charge. 

How emphatically the law charges the Parish Priest with the 
celebration of all public and parochial worship and sacraments, 
appears very distinctly from the rubrics of the institution. The 
Bishop has then specific forms of proceeding prescribed, which 
he must follow; he is present “in his very Episcopal character,” 
and discharging high duties—actually vesting another with the 
rights of Parish Priest. Yet so far from considering this official 
presence as giving him the right to control the services, the ru- 
bric, at the end of the office of imstztutzon, when the Bishop’s du- 
ties as Bishop had been completed, and the Minister was znstztu- 
ted, sets the new Parish Priest, in the very presence of the Epis- 
copal glory, to the administration of the communion. Usually 
the Bishop is represented by a Minister; but if present he is 
authorized to take his place, but his place only. Yet he is then 
as emphatically present “in his very Episcopal character,” as 
when on a visitation; and control of the service is quite as ne- 
cessary “in order to the exercise of his Episcopal function.” It 
has no connexion in fact, out of the heads of the committee, with 
either. 

When the Bishop, in his Episcopal character, is required and 
authorized to celebrate the communion, not, of course, as mere 
Parish Priest, but as incident to some exercise of Episcopal func- 
tions properly and exclusively so called, as in the ordination and 
consecration services, a form is specially provided, specifying in 
every rubric, not the Minister, not the Priest, but the Bishop, as 
the officiating personage. Every thing of a merely parochial 
character is omitted ; there are no notices of the bans of matrimo- 
ny, nor of the holy days or fasts, nor of the communion; and the 
alms are delivered to the Bishop, not to the Parish Priest. Every 
thing bespeaks the presence of the Bishop, in his character of 
general overseer of the Church, in the performance of his high 
functions, and the entire absence of every mark of parochial 
ministration or service. 

The remark of the committee, reiterated by Mr. Evans (p. 8) 
in substance, that the supposed difficulty from the use of the 
word Priest in the ordinary communion service, may be obviated 
by his resorting to the order prescribed with the ordination ser- 


32 


vice, which is not confined by the rubric to that service, “and 
which no rubric forbids him from using whenever he may think 
proper to do so,” is frivolous and irrelevant, and involves an entire 
misapprehension of the true point of difficulty. That does not 
arise from the want of a form free from the word Priest, but be- 
cause the Bishop has no right to do the thing ttself. If he have no 
right to invade the right of the Parish Priest, in administering 
the communion in his Parish services, the existence of that form 
cannot bestow it. It is a form which, perhaps, may be used on 
all occasions of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper by a Bishop, 
in the discharge of his Episcopal functions, whether of ordain- 
ing a Priest, or consecrating a Bishop or a Church. But the 
form is provided for the occasions when the Bishop has the right 
to do the thing itself. If the possession of a form and a capacity 
of order be alone requisite to settle the right, then the Bishop, 
armed with this form, and trammelled by no restraining rubric, 
can apply the form to every occasion his fancy may suggest. 
With it he may invade every Parish, and oust every Parish Priest 
from this his most cherished privilege, and utterly disorganize 
the Church by destroying the discipline and control of the Min- 
isters resident, in admitting to, or excluding from the communion 
persons of whose fitness or unfitness they alone are competent 
judges. So my reverend and learned friend’s argument proves 
too much, and demonstrates its own worthlessness. The true 
and plain view of the matter is this: the form exists, and is pro- 
vided for occasions of celebration of the Supper by the Bishop 
in that character, and as incident to, and part of, some act of 
peculiarly Episcopal function. What those occasions are have 
been above enumerated; they are defined in the rubrics, and 
whatsoever goes beyond them is usurpation and illegality. 

The propositions of Mr. Evans (pp. 10 and 11) are possibly 
very true, but prove nothing to the point. If “they are the basis” 
of the asserted right, he may relieve himself from the unfounded 
suspicion that “it is felt” that their overthrow is “impossible,” 
and quite as reasonable an explanation of Mr. Gassaway’s neg- 
lectful silence may be found in the unfortunate fact that Mr. 
Evans’ pamphlets are not, like the laws, presumed to be known 
by all men; or perhaps because he did not consider them as quite 
equal in authority to the report of the committee as a foundation 
for the principles of the Holy Apostolic Church. When a few 
centuries shall have rolled round, and Mr. Gassaway shall be 
forgotten, save as a presumptuous and heretical opposer of the 
successor of the Apostles in his “wise and judicious exercise of 
a discretion canonically vested in him,” it is possible that argu- 
ment may be elevated to the rank of the Ignatian Epistles, known 
and read of all men; and then to discuss the case without refer- 
ence to it, will certainly imply the felt impossibility of meeting 
it, weighty in the panoply of truth, and hoary with the authority 
of ages of silent acquiescence. It is possible that then he may 


oo 


be looked back to with a species of kind indulgence for his lenient 
concession of “the right of the Church to regulate the exercise 
of Episcopal function,” or perhaps some learned critic may vin- 
dicate kis memory from injury by the fragmentary condition of 
his “remains,” and suggest that “canonically” is an interpolation 
of a later day, and of low and latitudinarian principles. 

Will he accept as a peace offering my atonement for Mr. Gas- 
saway’s neglect ? 

The first proposition, “That the Bishop is a Minister of the word 
and sacraments, in other words a Priest,” who denies? and what 
does it prove but a competency to perform the duties of a Priest 
when the appropriate sphere is assigned him? 

The second, “That he has jurisdiction throughout his diocese” 
is alse true; but to do what? to discharge the duty of Parish 
Priest every where? Is there no parochial cure which the Bishop 
may not invade? Or is he not confined to the jurisdiction of an 
Episcopal character, given him by the canons, and to be exercised 
only in accordance with them; and consequently if existing, yet 
latent and incapable of exercise, save so far as the Church has 
provided for them according to law? 

The third proposition, “'That visitation is an exercise of juris- 
diction,” is perfectly true; but what is the conclusion from these 
premises so ostentatiously and triumphantly paraded? Surely 
nothing more than that the Bishop has the right of visitation through- 
out his Diocese; and one would suppose that it might have been 
assumed without such formal proof of what nobody disputes. He 
cannot have forgotten his admonition to Mr. Gassaway, that 
“such a change of issue can only serve any cause, by inducing the 
ignorant to believe that the persons against whom such arguments 
are produced, really rest their cause” on their denial. Such a 
mode of warfare it is “ difficult to reconcile with the ninth com- 
mandment.” “There are minds to which such artifices are natu- 
ral and congenial, but they are very unworthy of” Mr. Evans. 

It was not required to prove the right of visitation; the canon 
gives tt, and says he shall visit the various Parishes for specific 
purposes. What it was required to prove was, that the control 
of the services in the parochial Church, contemporaneous with 
the visitation, is a part of the visitation, or necessary in order to 
the exercise of some Episcopal function appropriate to a visita- 
tion. Of this, from beginning to end of his remarks, there is not 
the slightest attempt at proof, from laws, canons or rubric. That 
is, there is no law prescribing or allowing it—no rubric mentions 
it—no necessity is shown for it—no good purpose to be answered 
by it; and the entire absence of even a claim of the right, is lame- 
ly explained by saying Mr. Trapnell was the first man in the 
Universal Church, publicly and personally to deny the right of 
the Bishop to regulate the services at a visitation. The reply is 
as valid and as easy as the explanation, that Mr. Trapnell was 
the first so to deny in the Universal Church, because Bishop 

5 


34 


Whittingham was the first of the successors of the Apostles, whe 
not content with the courteous and hospitable invitation to his 
predecessors to honor the Presbyter, and favor his parishioners 
with his eloquence and unction, grasped as a right, what they 
had enjoyed as a courtesy. The only formal denial of the right 
was the consequence of its first open and public assertion. 

The argument in its support is, in substance, this: that the an- 
cient Bishops had power to minister (of course it is meant in every 
capacity) throughout their Dioceses; and the Presbyters, where 
they were appointed by them, but not exclusive of them.” That the 
institution of Parishes has altered “ this so far as to give the Priests 
a right to minister in their parishes, but not to the exclusion of the 
Bishop; and the conclusion is asserted that our Bishops have the 
same powers with the early Bishops, liable it is conceded, to be 
regulated by the Church, but not to betaken away. Hesays “the 
power is claimed as inherent in the office itself;” and conceding 
that there is not in scripture “any precise account of the powers 
of the Episcopal office,” he attempts to “gather what were its 
powers prom the practic of the primitive Church.” His argu- 
ment is an agglomeration of miscellaneous opinions and dicta, all 
in his own vein of argument, attempting to deduce and prove the 
rights of the Bishops of the modern from those. of the ancient 
Churches; and when any power is proved to have been exer- 
eised in the latter, to claim its existence in the former, with an am- 
biguous and hesitating proviso that it may be regulated, but not 
taken away by our canon law. 

Against this view and this proof I enter my solemn and earnest 
protest on behalf of the laity of this Church, as inconsistent with 
the constitution and canons of their Church, subversive of their 
rights, and involving the essence of a spiritual despotism. The 
very form of the argument is an absurdity. The Bishop of An- 
tioch or of Jerusalem exercised such a power, therefore the Bishop 
of Maryland has that power!! Will not my learned expositor of 
the faith follow his principles a little further—to their grave? 
Alfred, King of England, sat in judgment in person in his courts, 
and administered justice by his own hands to his people—the 
Kings of England have always been the fountain of justice ; there- 
fore, no statute forbidding, Victoria may preside on the Queen’s 
Bench!! Alfred first personally judged and then hanged Cadwin, 
because he condemned Hackway to death without the assent of 
all the jurors; therefore, if Denman doth the like, Victoria may 
first judge and then hang him! !—for surely she is the successor 
of Alfred in every sense that. our Bishops are successors of those 
of the early Church, and in a much closer sense: she is the Queen 
of the same Kingdom. The true parallel to the argument is 
more absurd. The German Emperors were the successors of 
the Roman Emperors, therefore their power was absolute, ex- 
tending to life and death, and embracing the whole power of 
legislation; or is it unfair to urge that, the Roman Empire em- 


35 


bracing Europe, each Kingdom occupying its soil may deduce 
the powers of its rulers from the rights of the Roman Emperors. 
Their Kingdoms are parts of the civil society, occupying the 
limits of the Roman Empire, as our Church is a part of the Uni- 
versal Church. The folly is, in confounding organic identity of 
the particular Church or State, with mere succession in point of 
time to the regulation of the affairs of religious or of civil con- 
duct. The Universal Church has never been an organized body 
prescribing laws, any more than “ civil society” has ever been one 
government, the ecumenical councils, so called, to the contrary not- 
withstanding; if it ever was, it is not so now. Our articles as- 
sert the right of “ each particular or national church” to do what- 
ever could be done by man’s authority in the Church; and our 
national Church now stands clothed with as ample and uncon- 
trolled powers of legislation, as all or any of the earlier Churches. 
She has assumed the right of defining her articles of faith as in- 
herent in herself; and I suppose our Right Reverend Father 
would not venture to prefer io her exposition of any article the 
opposing declaration of any early council. The Protestant Epis- 
copal Church looks with respect to the decisions and views of the 
early Church, especially of the Nicene age; but she does not re- 
cognize any usage, custom, or canon, of any Church, national or 
universal, as her Jaw—as the source or rule of any right to any, 
the least of her Ministers. 

Different views may be, and are held, of the organization of 
the apostolic Church, of the extent and origin of the early Epis- 
copal rights, of their origin from the Apostles, or from the Church 
subsequent to them, as well as different views of the doctrines of 
the trinity and the sacraments, and the nature and operations of 
faith, and its relation to good works. But does this give us the 
right to hunt up the opinions of the early Church, confused and 
conflicting, or even unanimous, and then palm them off as the 
views of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States ? 

Surely her teachings can only be found in her articles—her di- 
cipline in her canons—her views of the powers of her officers in 
her forms of consecration and ordination. They may be errone- 
ous in theory, but that is not the question—though erroneous they 
are hers. She assumes and avers the conformity to scripture of 
all her articles, and ceremonies, and offices; but if, in fact, they 
do not conform to it, they are not the less her laws and her views. 
Those who do not like them, can leave her communion; but they 
are not authorized to substitute their logic for her symbols—to 
argue that the Episcopal Church says her worship and organiza- 
tion is conformable to scripture and antiquity; but this form or this 
canon is not so conformed, therefore it is not her form or her canon; 
when a glance at her laws will show the canon formally enacted. 
In spite of such reasoning, the canon continues to be her law. 

The right to be a Bishop of this Church had no existence be- 
fore her organization; the right to be her Bishop flows solely 


36 


from her canons and constitution, else the English or Romish 
Bishops could rule and minister for her without her authority. 
And when they become and are admitted to be her Bishops, it is 
only under the express condition of viewing the Bible as she 
views it; of ministering according to her formularies; of ruling 
according to her canons ; of visiting according to her directions. 
She never refers to tradition, nor to the early Church, nor to the 
English Church, for any right of her officers, for any rule of law, 
for any mode of procedure. She assumes and asserts her own 
perfect independence, her competency to every ecclesiastical act, 
and puts down in her laws, and rubrics, and forms, her articles of 
faith, and worship, and rule. She avers the conformity of her 
Church organization to the Bible and the model of antiquity ; but 
she has first completed the edifice before she compares it with 
the august ruins of the early temple, or approves its mature con- 
formity to the teachings of the Gospel. She is guilty of no such 
puerility as to declare that her system of government and faith 
were those of the Bible, without specifying what they were. 

She says her Bishops are modeled after the Apostolic idea, but 
she shows in all detail what are the powers and duties of these 
officers before she affirms their conformity to scripture : and per- 
haps the power or attribute not specified in her canons, which 
some of her learned members may think a part, and even an 
essential part, of the early Church’s view of the Episcopate, she, 
if questioned, would utterly repudiate. To add to her ennumer- 
ation of Episcopal functions, is to change her formularies, and to 
usurp her legislative power. She only affirms the Apostolicity of 
those specific powers she enumerates, those specific duties she 
imposes; and if others are supposed equally to inhere in the 
Episcopal office, yet till she has said so through her only author- 
ized mouth, her General Convention. her Bishops have no right 
to wield the power, or to claim the attribute. Her silence is a 
negation upon the claim as part of the authority of her Bishops, 
for whose conformity to scripture she stands guaranty. She has 
entrusted to no man’s logic the settlement of her rules of faith 
and practice. 

The early Bishops ruled their Dioceses; so do ours; but our 
Bishops can inflict no penalty, exact no obedience, prescribe no 
rule, for which a specific authority is not found in the canons, 
“according to” which they can alone act. The early Bishops 
judged and rebuked presbyters and laity, and excommunicated 
them; with us the judicial power over presbyters is vested in 
courts, Whose organization is prescribed. Can the Bishop revert 
to his supposed inherent power of ruling, judging, and rebuking ? 
Our laws leave the power of repelling from the communion to 
the Parish Priest. Can the Bishop, without usurpation, forbid ac- 
cess to any one communicant in his whole Diocese? The early 
Bishop was the recipient of the alms of the people. Can our 
Bishop touch a cent of the contributions of the faithful at the 


37 


offertory? The power of confirmation is conferred expressly in 
consecration. Can he confirm any one not presented by the 
Parish Priest? Surely none of these things are deducible from 
the early Church; but they flow from the fact, that our Church 
has proclaimed her system of government and laws, and what 
she has not inserted she has not adopted, nor conferred on, nor 
recognized in, her officers. 

And thus is it with the right of visitation. It had no existence 
in the ancient Church; for there were no Parishes to visit. We 
are assured that the Bishop was sole and universal incumbent. 
If he went to a particular congregation, it was his own congrega- 
tion ; he came to see not how others were performing their duty, 
but how his agents were performing his duties. The right of 
visitation, as now recognized, had its historic origin with the rise 
of the parochial system. But with the history of it, we, as a 
Church, have nothing to do. 

Our church knows nothing of visitation, but what her own laws 
have said of it. She may have moddled it after the English sys- 
tem. It approaches if more nearly than any other. But she does 
not refer to nor adopt that system as hers, as frequently our new 
States adopt the laws of New York or the common law of Eng- 
land by a simple reference, subject to subsequent alteration. But 
she has declared according to what rule a Bishop shall visit his 
Diocese. The Canon xxv, 1832, directs when, and for what 
purposes, he shall visit his Diocese, and provides for the perform- 
ance of his peculiar parochial duties while so absent. The next 
one prescribes the duties of the Minister of the Parish visited. 
A canonical visitation must be one, according to this canon; for 
there is no other word in the laws of the Church on the subject. 
He is acting according to the canon so long as he does what this 
canon directs; when he does, as part of his visitorial power, 
any other act, he is not acting according to the canon, but beyond 
it. He has no right to require the obedience of the Parish 
Priest ; for he has no power to govern, except according to the 
canons. As to the Bishop’s right to instruct his people, to admin- 
ister the sacrament, and the like, his general right of instructing 
and guiding his Diocese, is provided for by the direction to ad- 
dress pastoral letters to the people, to deliver at least once in three 
years a,charge to the Clergy, of his Diocese. In England each 
Bishop is provided with a Cathedral Church—his proper see— 
considered as the Parish Church of all the Diocese; and there 
he ministers as Parish Priest, with such aid as his chapter and 
and others may afford. We have provided nothing of the kind; 
but the Bishop is supposed by the canon, though not absolutely 
required, to have “ parochial duties belonging to him ;” and pro- 
vision is made for supplying the place of a chapter of the Cathe- 
dral Church by his Ministers in rotation. 

The theory of the Cathedral system in England seems to be a 
relic there of the early condition of the Diocese, before its divi- 


38 


sion into Parishes, when the Bishop was the universal incumbent 
of the whole Diocese. 

But the Church of that age is about as much like ours as the 
monarchy of Alfred is like that of Victoria. The Dioceses of the 
age immediately after the Apostolic are about as much like those 
of the American Church as the Democracy of Athens is like that 
of the United States. 

The only light the Bible throws on the forms of the Churches 
of the Apostolic age is not a little shadowy, flickering, and ob- 
scure. Mr Evans concedes that there is in scripture no precise 
account of the powers of the Episcopal office; and we are a little 
curious to know what sort of an establishment of an office that 
can be said to be which leaves its powers and duties unascer- 
tained. Few on whom the mysterious light of the “succession” 
has not descended can pretend to discover more than the unform- 
ed embryo of the future official triumvirate ; while many disco- 
ver no tendency to any definite form, but a plastic susceptibility 
of such mould as time and circumstances may impress. 

But, whatever view may be taken of the more or less definite 
organization of the Church of the Apostolic age, and of the 
exclusive character of ministerial authority, it is certain that 
the diocesan system of the early Church is not the model of 
our own. It had no enduring permanency; but in common with 
the whole government of the Church, it has sympathized in every 
age with the varying forms of the civil society in whose midst 
it has been planted. At first it was the church of a single city, 
owing allegiance, and having organic connexion nowhere else 
—a mere Parish (paroichia) swollen beyond the capacity of its 
single Minister to meet its spiritual wants, and the consequent 
introduction of others, not to supersede, but to aid him, and act at 
his will. Such continued to be, even after the Episcopate had 
assumed all the attributes of a defined and legally absolute office, 
the nature of the ancient Diocese. But when each Bishop had 
grasped the reins in his particular city, the necessary tendency to 
centralization of a multitude of societies animated by the same 
feelings and belief, the yearning after unity on the part of the 
people, together with the analogy of the civil government of the 
empire from provincial centres, the chief provincial cities, the 
Bishops of those cities obtained at first a certain respect from 
superior cultivation, then, from frequent consultation, an authori- 
ty which finally indurated and became fixed into a legal right of 
metropolitan control, through a provincial synod or council. 
But the internal organization of the respective Dioceses perhaps 
remained in substance the same. Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexan- 
dria, and Rome, were metropolitan centres. 

The Emperors of the East and the West, reigning at Rome and 
Constantinople, set the example of a double yet not separate 
headship of the empire; and the same causes and tendencies 
which had elevated the metropolitan over the Bishops, still the 


b9 


system of England, now embraced the provinces of the empire 
in two vast ecclesiastical and spiritual organizations, which, with 
the decline of the empire, culminated in the two great heads of 
the Eastern and the Western Church, each claiming but neither 
achieving universal and exclusive monarchy, but rearing their 
opposing forms in hostile grandeur through long ages of vigor, 
till time and war and the corruptions of a despotism, useful in its 
origin, but outliving its necessity, having sapped their strength, 
the conquest of Constantinople and the revolution of Luthur re- 
duced them both to trembling and flitting shadows of their former 
greatness—at which the world has not yet gotten over the habit 
of its childhood to tremble. 

Thus has the Church government always in the long run mould- 
ed itself on the existing civil system—for the men who wielded the 
empire worshiped in the Church. Imperial and absolute under 
the empire, under Hildebrand and his successors it became a 
feudal monarchy; and the English Bishops now grace the Upper 
House in virtue of their Episcopal Baronies, and the influence of 
her form of the monarchical system has left its deep traces on 
her National Church. 

Deriving the essential principles of both our civil and ecclesi- 
astical constitution from England, in each case we cut off the 
monarchical element, the appointing power of the King and the 
patron, and the headship of the crown in matters civil and eccle- 
siastical ; in both we elected our officers ; in both we declared our 
inherent right to settle our government for ourselves ; in both we 
embodied our principles of faith and government, civil and eccle- 
siastical, in “fundamental principles,” in bills of rights, in con- 
stitutions of government, in government by rules of law, not left 
to discretion, but written down for the guidance of our officers; 
in both, after a temporary period of comparative provincial sepa- 
ration rather than independence, the Dioceses and the States 
urged by those hidden sympathies and those manifest interests 
which are the instruments of God to govern the world, respective- 
ly blended into federal governments on identically the same prin- 
ciples, leaving local matters to the local elements, but confiding 
all matters of general interest to the central authorities acting 
on individuals. On every part of each magnificent structure, 
within and without, from the foundation to the topmost stone, 
was inscribed the great principle—of the control of the people 
over their own affairs, ecclesiastical or civil—relative to faith or 
practice; and their government by officers in whose selection they 
should have a voice, and not by arbitrary will or discretion, how- 
ever paternal—but by laws detining the limits of command and 
obedience, and the ultimate source of authority to their rulers. 

The United States may pass laws inconsistent with what some 
think the “ higher law” of republican principles ; but for her the 
constitution is the definition of republicanism, and she would 
scarcely pardon her President for looking among the consular 
powers for his rule of action. 


40 


And so the Church of these United States has for herself, on 
her own responsibility, embodied her views of the true principles 
of the christian faith and of the organization of the Christian 
Church in her symbolical articles, her constitution, her canons, 
her forms of worship, and of commission to her Ministers; and 
from them, and beyond them, affirming them to contain her inter- 
pretation of scripture, and her views of the rightful form of 
Church authority, she recognizes, she allows, she provides for no 
appeal to the “ early Churches,” nor any evolution of new laws for 
her government—the offspring of a feeble logic and a fasle history. 

The attempt of the Right Reverend Bishop of Maryland, and 
his band of coadjutors is, to make laws for this Church that she 
has not made, out of materials and by processes she has not sanc- 
tioned. The result, if successful, is to change our republican and 
popular Church government for the irresponsible discretionary 
despotism of the early diocesan system—its only law the divine 
right of Bishops. 

Mr. Gassaway was right in recalling the attention of the peo- 
ple to one attempted usurpation, so flagrant, that the claimant, 
though triumphing in the particular trial which grew out of it, 
has been obliged to abandon it. Let it be repeated, the Bishop 
did assert, that “it pertains to me, by right of my office, to have 
the privilege of administering the Lord’s Supper in any Parish 
or congregation of my Diocese, in which, with due regard to cir- 
cumstances, (thanks for the concession,) and proper notice, J may 
express my desire to do so. 

Thws was asserted, but was too palpable a usurpation to be 
maintained. It has not been abandoned, but is held in reserve, 
to be gotten quietly and stealthily by “a wise and judicious exer- 
cise of a discretion canonically vested in him,” for which the 
committee so obsequiously laud him. 

When he assailed the rights of Dr. Johns, “to be sure it was 
done in respectful and decorous language,” for the Bishop is a 
gentleman and a christian; and the reply of Dr. Johns, asserting 
his rights under the laws of the Church, was in equally “respect- 
ful and decorous language.” 

But again, as in the case of Mr. Trapnell, the Bishop manifest- 
ed that grasping after more power than was given him, which 
rendered the Episcopate so suspicious to our forefathers. He did 
not confine himself to the mere right of administering the commu- 
nion—the point at last insisted on—but claimed also to preach, 
and take up and dispose of the alms. He was willing to take 
the chance of a yielding spirit to get more than hé could main- 
tain. Resistance instantly narrowed his front to the right to ad- 
minister the communion. Dr. Johns was reported to the Conven- 
tion as having undertaken “ to control the services and his minis- 
trations on the occasion.” 

The committee’s report proclaim principles which fully sustain 
the original claim of the Bishop in Trapnell’s case; but they 


41 


liberally throw away half of the fruits of their logic, and instead 
of drawing the conclusion, inevitable from their premises, of the 
universal right of the Bishop to assume at any time the whole 
of the parochial ministrations, since he is inherently competent to 
the performance of all, they only maintain his right on occasions 
of canonical visitations, and thus they claim to the full all the 
rights enumerated in the Bishop’s notice, even to the disposition 
of the alms, though in the very teeth of the canon. 

The principle is not dead, it sleepeth. It is not abandoned, but 
is held in reserve for a more convenient season, till the path is 
made smooth, and opposition is removed by gradual quiet, judi- 
cious and imperceptible advances, step by step, till finally the 
laity will wake up and find their whole parochial system a sha- 
dow and a mockery, and the Bishop their universal Parish Priest. 

And this principle Mr. Evans, with the most engaging faith in 
Episcopal moderation, calls harmless!! He holds cheap the in- 
tegrity of our government of laws and canons, or else he is mar- 
velously ill-read in the ecclesiastical legislation of England, or 
perhaps he is the victim of that hallucination which attributes 
something approaching to impeccability to the genuine successors 
of the Apostles. I would speak with becoming reverence of that 
unspeakable mystery, yet I hope it will not be considered profane 
to suggest that the descent of the Apostolic spirit upon their suc- 
cessors has proved singularly ineffectual to satisfy or conciliate 
the insubordinate spirit of man. The divine right, whether of 
Kings or of Priests, has ever been a doctrine which neither we 
nor our fathers were able to bear. No authority, spiritual or 
civil, ever vested in man, subject to no responsibility beneath the 
Eternal Throne, and claiming thence its commission, has been 
found tolerable. 

The Papal Crown claimed through the Apostolical succession 
its perpetual inspiration and its divine right to rule the world, 
and on that foundation reared a superstructure of spiritual des- 
potism too weighty for the patience of man. It would not be 
controlled by human authority, and man rose against it and shat- 
tered its fetters. 

The Kings of England, on their accession to the headship of 
the National Church, fell heir to a fragment of this poisonous 
purple of the Popedom, and “the divine right of Kings,” elevat- 
ed itself above the obligation of the laws of Church and State, 
and claiming its descent from on high, grasped at irresponsible 
power, till the people rose in their wrath, and the head of one 
King rolled in the dust, and a successor fled from his throne, leav- 
ing it vacant for one who did not claim by the “ divine right.” 
This same pestilent heresy now infests our Episcopate. Its mem- 
bers are proud to decorate themselves in the rags of the robes 
torn by their fathers from the shoulders of a spiritual despot, and 
they humbly aspire to some small share of the miraculous inspi- 
ration of the succession. They would do well to remember that 

6 


42 


they tread on dangerous ground; that once in our history the 
adoption or rejection of Episcopacy was a serious question set~ 
tled in its favor with no small misgiving ; and a second discus- 
sion, arising from any claim to inherent prerogatives by the right 
divine, may end in the people seeking safety against a power 
which spurns their control, by dispensing with its existence. 

There is but one sure reliance for the preservation of the influ- 
ence and healthful popularity of the Episcopal office—to confine 
it strictly to the limits of the law. Of this the minority of the 
committee have set us an example worthy of all admiration in 
their first resolution: “That on occasions of Episcopal visita- 
tions the Bishop cannot, as matter of right, claim other than the 
performance of those functions peculiar to the Episcopal office, 
as specially indicated by the canons and rubrics relating thereto.” 
That resolution embodies the law of the Church, to which her true 
children with cheerful alacrity will conform; and which those 
who presumptuously aspire to power above her laws, will be com- 
pelled to obey. 

The personal imputations on Dr. Johns are entitled to but brief 
notice. 

The fling at him involved in the assertion that “it was re- 
solved that the Bishop should not be suffered to escape from the 
controversy, and quietly enjoy the exercise of his Episcopal pre- 
rogatives,” if worthy of an answer, may be disposed of by a re- 
ference to the fable of the lamb and the wolf beside the stream. 
It is a poor attempt to defend the Bishop’s neglect when the 
failure to give an “invitation” the law did not require is attri- 
buted to a desire “to give an opportunity for getting up an agita- 
tion.” The motive is the writer’s invention ; and though it would 
be presumptuous to compare a Presbyter with a Bishop, yet the 
latter will hardly refrain from accepting the “pre-eminence in 
ecclesiastical affairs,’ which the history of the last ten years at- 
tributes to him, in settling the question,—which is the agitator? 

It is rather cool assumption to expect Dr. Johns to await a re- 
medy by a legislative body for a wrong already provided for by 
law; and the suggestion of the General Convention as the arbi- 
trator, comes with a poor grace from one of the chiefs of the ma- 
jority which voted down the reference of the matter to that au- 
gust tribunal. 

I have not sought the opportunity to compare with Mr. Evans 
the “manner in which the two men met the question,” but he is 
mistaken if he supposes his invitation or example will not be 
followed. 

The law commands the Bishop to visit his Parishes at least 
once in three years, for three distinct purposes: to examine the 
state of his Church, to inspect the behavior of his Clergy, and to 
administer the Apostolic rite of confirmation. The administra- 
tion of the communion on that occasion, if a right, is not made 
a duty, nor is it connected by the Church with the performance 


43 


of either of the duties specified. The Rector was ready to per- 
mit the state of his Church and his own behavior to be examined, 
and was anxious and ready for the celebration of the rite of con- 
firmation on numerous candidates, and so expressly informed the 
Bishop. He only declined to prepare for the communion. Now, 
if duty was the only thing in view of the Bishop—if no favorite 
schemes of Episcopal aggrandizement were to be fostered—what 
was the plain course of duty, even if the right to administer the 
communion existed, as an independent right? His duty as a 
Bishop under the law was to have been careful to inspect the 
condition of a Church thus under the control of so insubordinate 
a Presbyter ; for such contumacy might well raise the suspicion 
of any thing but a healthy parochial administration. Every mo- 
tive of prudential care for the purity of the Church and its Min- 
isters called loudly on the Bishop to see whether this congrega- 
tion could longer be left under the care of one so regardless of his 
duties to his superior. Every consideration of christian duty for- 
bade him to visit on the innocent members of this Church, anx- 
iously awaiting the Episcopal advent to renew their baptismal 
vows, the sins of their Rector, and to deny to them and to the 
rest of the Parish the benefit of the Episcopal ministrations, be- 
cause their Rector refused to recognise one unconnected portion 
of the Bishop’s official claims. 

His clear duty was to have visited the Parish, to have inspect- 
ed its condition and the conduct of Dr. Johns, to have laid his 
hands on the crowd of expectant candidates, and then, ir he was 
well persuaded in his own mind, that the refusal to prepare for and 
permit the communion, and his receipt of the alms, was a viola- 
tion of the Jaw of the Church, and contumaciously persisted in, 
it was his duty to have proceeded to the judicial investigation of 
the question. 

But, instead of that, he visited the refusal by Dr. Johns of a 
part of his claim on his innocent parishioners, and laid his Parish 
under a virtual interdict. 

Was there a secret consciousness that his claims would not 
bear the stress of a legal discussion; for the Ishmaelites of the 
Bar are sadly deficient in respectful deference for the successors 
of the Apostles when they are on the other side? Was it that 
he felt more safe before his Convention—sure of a present tri- 
umph by a disciplined spiritual soldiery, aided by a zealous and 
not inefficient lay militia, and with the true instinct of a far-see- 
ing ambition, biding his time till the contest could be renewed 
with all the accession of strength sure to flow from a formal vote 
of the Convention? Was it that, careful to tread in the footsteps 
of his “illustrious predecessors” in the Apostolical succession of 
the See of Rome, he sought to reach the crowned head through 
the subject, and, looking far before, fondly hoped that the congre- 
gation, yearning for the return of Episcopal sunshine, and weari- 
ed with the abiding interdict, might lay their distress at the door 


44. 


of their Pastor—accuse his contumacy as the cause of their ca- 
lamities, and at once rid themselves of the interdict, and the 
Diocese of an agitator ? ; 

I leave to Mr. Evans the unpleasant prerogative of divining 
the motives of his fellow-man. 

[ put far from me the promptings of a profane curiosity to’ex- 
plore the mysteries of a bosom illuminated by the emanations of 
the Apostolical Succession. I confess my incompetency to judge 
by the ordinary rules of human conduct the actions of a power 
which claims its source from above. 

In sorrowing wonder, with my hand upon my mouth and my 
mouth in the dust, | murmur: Tantaene animis coelestibus irae ! 

Your loving Brother, 


ULRIC VON HUTTEN. 








CORRESPONDENCE 


BETWEEN THE 


Rt. Rev. WILLIAM R. WHITTINGHAM, D.D. 


Bishop of the Protestant Episcopa: | vurch of Maryland, 


Rev. HENRY V. D. JOHNS, D. D. 


Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore, 


BALTIMORE: 
JOHN W. WOODS, PRINTER, 


1852. 











ee Te 


—_—— 
ill 
— 


——— 


eS 


= 





— Ee Rn 










c Toe bi ( 4 : 


a ug : 


(ud ™ ny ir al ’ 


“a ; Z 


» 


ae a al a i 


1 
' 


unltiee flare me : 


Nf AY a 


vi] ey, a eS () tT? mina oe 


ie es a 14a AER ee 


PREFACE. } 





In placing before the public a new edition of the Correspondence between 
the Right Reverend Witusam R. Wuirtinenam, D. D. Bishop of the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church in Maryland, and the Rey. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D. 
Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore, in pamphlet form, a few extracts have 
been made from two of the leading Tractarian papers, and placed as a preface 
to this edition to show the necessity which exists for the course that the Rey. 
Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D. has been forced to pursue in self-defence. 

The Banner of the Cross, of November 1, 1851, quotes the following item: 

‘‘A Baltimore correspondent of the New York Christian Advocate, informs 
its readers, that special meetings have lately been held for upwards of six 
weeks in that city, to keep up the excitements produced by a recent Camp 
Meeting in its vicinity ; and that one most pleasing feature of the work, is the 
union of the ministers of the different denominations, in the large Methodist _ 
Episcopal Church, in Eutaw street. Among the preachers was the Rey. Dr. 
J., and the writer well asks, ‘‘what would some of our high toned high church- 
men at the North, think of a minister of their denomination, preaching at a re- 
vival in a Methodist meeting house? What indeed!” 

The Protestant Churchman of New York makes the following note upon the 
above. ‘The circumstance referred to has led, as we learn, to a correspond- 
ence between theyBishop of Maryland, and the Presbyter aimed at, which will, 
when published, give an entirely different phase to the matter. ‘Dr. J.,* un- 
less we are much mistaken, has done precisely what Bishops, Priests and 
Deacons (high and low) have done before him. We hope that he will publish 
the whole case forthwith, and it will then be time enough to apportion marks 
of admiration, and judge to whom the hint will best apply.’’ ‘*What indeed !”’ 


Extract from the New York Churchman of March 6, 1852. 
SEcTARIANISM IN BALTIMORE. 
“‘Mr. Epiror: 
Two short articles appeared in the Baltimore Sun, in October 
last, to which the attention of your readers may, perhaps, with profit be di- 
rected. The first is in these words : 

‘*A week’s meeting at the Methodist Episcopal Church, Eutaw street, is to 
commence this day, Oct. 6. A prayer meeting, each day, at 9 o’clock, A. M. 
and half past 7 o’clock, P. M. 

Sermon on Monday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rey. Dr. Wesster. 

Sermon on Tuesday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rev. Mr. Srocxrron. 

Sermon on Wednesday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rey. Dr. Piumer. 

Sermon on Thursday, at 1014 o’clock, A. M. by Rev. Dr. Jouns. 

The public generally are respectfully invited to attend.”’ 

The first thing that strikes us in this annunciation is the fact, that for four suc- 
cessive days, there was in a certain building in the city of Baltimore, usually ap- 
propriated to prayer, singing and preaching, an apparent union and blending of 
discordant religious materials. Of the peculiar views, denominational faith, 
or sectarian bias of Rev. Dr. Wezsrer, I have no knowledge. If, however 


4 PREFACE. 


he possesses only some of the qualities which distinguished the great lexicog- 
rapher of that name, he may be set down, if not as an Irvingite, at least as one 
endowed with a gift which will comprehend the tongues of all sects, and em- 
brace the sects of all tongues. The Rev. Mr. Srocxron is classed, if I mis~ 
take not, among the anti-sectarians or no denominationists; a respectable 
though not numerous body, of whom one of our departed Bishops used to say, 
that they were “neither fish, flesh nor good herring.’’ Respecting the Rey. 
Dr. Piumer, and the Rev. Dr. Jonns, we cannot be mistaken. The lattera 
Protestant Episcopalian, will be remembered by all who have read the Jour 
nal and Debates of the General Convention of 1850. The former, an old 
school Presbyterian, by all who have heard of the bitterness which character- 
ized his opposition to Episcopacy during his residence among confessedly 
‘‘Evangelical”’ brethren in Richmond, Virginia. ‘ 

Another noticeable fact is, that while a ‘prayer meeting,’’ (we all know 
what that means,) while a ‘‘concert of prayer’ was held forseven days succes- 
sively, no provision was made for the offering up on Thursday, of the “Daily 
Morning Prayer,’’ which might have been expected of a Protestant Episcopal 
Presbyter, anxious to set forth the beauties of his Evangelical Liturgy, no less 
than to worship in the beauty of Holiness. At the institution of Dr. Jouns, the 
Bible, the Prayer Book and the Books of Canons general and Diogesan were 
presented to him after this form: ‘Receive these books, and let them be the 
rule of your conduct in dispensing the Divine Word, in leading the devotions 
of the people,’’ &c. And according tothe 45th Canon of the General Conven- 
tion of 1832, the injunction is absolute. “Every minister shal, before all Ser- 
mons and Lectures, and on all other occasions of public worship, use the Book of 
Common Prayer, as the same is or may be established by the authority of the 
General Convention of this Church. And in performing said service, no other 
prayer shall be used than those prescribed by the said book.”” In additton to 
this, it may be observed, that Dr. Jouns, who is a warm advocate of the “P. E. 
Society, for the promotion of Evangelical Knowledge,’’ was one of the reputed 
authors of the Statement of The Distinctive Principles of that Society, which was _ 
reviewed in the Churchman a twelve month since. (How many authors it had, 
or at how often, and at what hands it underwent a revision, I will not pretend 
to declare,) of ‘‘the worship of the Church,”’ the statement says, ‘‘This is her 
stated incense of prayer and praise ; and on this point the Society holds, that 
in order to the highest edification, Public Worship should be Liturgical, simple 
and Scriptural in distinction from those who would cumber it with human in- 
ventions, superstitious forms, and corrupting ceremonies. Without saying that 
our Liturgy is faultless, we freely confess, that we have yet to discover any 
thing which so fully commends itself to our judgment, taste and religious af- 
fections. Some are satisfied with modes of public worship which to us appear 
even too severely simple, while others craving for the sensuous and the showy, 
have cumbered their ritual with a weight of inappropriate and often puerile 
ceremonies.’’ ‘‘Our Reformers, guided by a spirit of piety and of wisdom, which 
peculiarly qualified them for their great work, happily avoided both extremes. 
They have transmitted to us a Liturgy, sober, solemn, devotional and rich in 
scriptural truth, sufficiently simple for children in Christ ; yet full and lofty 
enough for those who have attained the mental] and spiritual maturity of ad- 
vanced Christians.”’ (pp. 41, 42.) 


- GORRESPONDENCE. 


RAR Ree eee 


Bartimore, Oct. 4, 1851. 


Reverend and Dear Sir—My attention has been called to an advertise- 
ment in the morning papers of this day, announcing, as part of the pro- 
ceedings at “‘A week meeting at the Methodist Episcopal Church, Eu-— 
taw street,’ “Sermon on Thursday, 103, by Rev. Dr. Johns.” The 
other names announced are those of gentlemen not belonging to the Prot- 
estant Episcopal Church ; yet, it is commonly supposed that the adver- 
tisement refers to you. 

In view of the publicity of this announcement, I feel bound in official 
duty, to call your attention to the fact, that the combination of the minis- 
try of the Protestant Episcopal Church with that of other denominations 
of Christians in such a series of consecutive services, held in a place of 
worship, and conducted under a religious authority, not recognised by the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, is, in the judgment of the Bishop, and a 
very large majority of the clergy and laity of this Diocese, injurious to the 
true interests of religion, and not in accordance with the laws and usages 
of our Church. 

As the representative of that large majority of your brethren, then, I 
respectfully and affectionately request you, and in virtue of my office, 
earnestly admonish you not to give occasion of offence to your Bishop 
and to a large proportion of the clergy and laity of the Diocese, by such 
public services as that for which your name is announced in this morning’s 
advertisement. 

Your compliance with this request and admonition will only 6ccasion 
the relinquishment of an extraordinary and unobligatory exercise of min- 
isterial gift, while it will contribute largely to the peace and good order of 
our common household, and take away a cause of much dissatisfaction to 
many of your brethren. 

Very faithfully and truly, 
Your friend and brother, 
WILLIAM ROLLINSON WHITTINGHAM, 
Bishop of Maryland. 
Rey. H. V. D. Jouns, D. D., 
Rector of Christ Church. 


Nees 


Battimore, Oct. 8, 1851. 


- 

Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir—I have duly received your note of October 4th, 
and given to it that careful consideration to which itis entitled. It is true, 
as you suppose, that I am the person referred to as intending to officiate 
in the Eutaw street Methodist Episcopal Church, on Thursday morning, 
Oct. 9th. The circumstances of the case are these: Three of the clergy 
of the denomination before named, called upon me a few days since, and 
tendered to me an invitation to preach on the day mentioned. They stated 
that it was an extraordinary effort which they were now making, and that 
they trusted, with God’s blessing, it would be productive of much good, 

re : 


6 


thus to tender this church to several of the clergy of adjacent denomina- 
tions having their confidence, as holding the great truths of a common 
faith. ° 

This in the usual routine of duty, Iam persuaded, it is wise for the differ- 
ent denominations of Christian people to labor, each in their several lines 
of service. But, it appeared to me, that here was an extraordinary case, 
to neglect the improvement of which would be to vacate the charge given 
us by St. Paul, ““As we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men, 
especially unto them who are of the household of faith,?? Galatians vi. 
10 :—and, again, ‘‘preach the word: be instant in season, out of season,” 
2 Timothy iv. 2. Accordingly, in reply, I observed, that with the distinct 
understanding, that 1 should control the service by using the book of ‘‘com- 
mon prayer’’ on the occasion referred to, | had no objection to preach at 
the time and place indicated. To this they cheerfully acceded. 

Whether your admonition and request, as set forth in your letter, are 
made with a knowledge of these facts, just related, 1 know not. Butif 
they are, allow me most respectfully to say, that I feel myself constrained 
to differ with you. Itis my conscientious conviction, that our clergy are at 
perfect liberty to accept and improve such extraordinary opportunities of 
promoting the cause of our common Christianity, and that we may con- 
sistently avail ourselves of them, in view of the Scriptures above recited, 
and also of the great command of our ascended Lord to “preach the gos- 
pel to every creature.” : 

The relinquishment of the appointment thus publicly made, on the 
grounds set forth in your letter, would, in my humble judgment, be in- 
consistent with the Catholic spirit of our Protestant Church, and as inju- 
rious to the true interests of religion, as you appear to think the fulfilment 
of my appointment would be. 

With great respect, 
Your friend and obedient servant, 
HENRY V. D. JOHNS, 
9 Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. 





Baxtimore, Oct. 9, 1851. 


Reverend and Dear Sir—I received your note of yesterday, this morning 
at ten o’clock,—too late for reply before the hour appointed for your pub- 
lic exercise in Kutaw street. t 

It occasions.me deep regret to learn, that in your judgment, compliance 
with my request and official admonition, on the grounds set forth in my 
conmmunication of the 4th, would be inconsistent with your views of duty } 
and-to be obliged to infer that you, therefore, did not comply. 

I have no resource in the discharge of official duty, but to Jay our corres- 
pondence before the Standing Committee of the Diocese, in order that that 
body may determine whether or not my communication of the Ath was 
such a “godly admonition” and “judgment,’’ as at your ordination to the 
Priesthood of this Church, you solemnly declared your obligation “rever- 
ently to obey” and “witha glad mind and will to follow” and “submit to.” 

Whatever may be the decision of that body, I have the satisfaction of 
knowing, that in endeavoring to hinder what a majority of your brethren 
deem an “offence against the common order of the Church,” my appeal 
was not to your deference for superior authority, or submission to judg- 
ments differing from your own, but to the great principle so solemnly en- 
joined on our observance by our Lord, that needless offence is not to be 
given to even His “little ones,” and to the charge of the Apostle, that 
“no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way.” 


7 


My admonition was, that in observance of that principle and charge, you 
should forego an opportunity of usefulness (in your judgment) certainly 
not within “the line” of your bounden duty, or of the discharge of your 
office as a Presbyter and Rector of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 

I am, faithfully and truly, 
Your friend and brother, 
' WILLIAM ROLLINSON WHITTINGHAM, 


Bishop of Maryland. 
Rey. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D., 
Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. 





Bautimore, Oct. 15th, 1851. 


Right Rev. and Dear Sir—Allow me to acknowledge your note of Oct. 
9th, which was duly received. I am now perfectly aware that the eccle- 
siastical principles, doctrinal views, and entire position of a portion of the 
clergy and laity of this Diocese, are, and ‘have been, to use your own 
words, ‘an offence” to yourself and others. At the very first interview 
which I had with you, nine years since, held at your own request, and in 
your own house, I was led to apprehend as much. When you adverted 
to the lecture-room' services of Christ Church, as conducted by my prede- 
cessor (now Bishop Johns, of the Diocese of Virginia,) and urged me to 
make a change in the same, and when in reply, I respectfully declined, on 
the ground that I could not consent to a measure which would be a reflec- 
tion upon my brother’s ministry, and also upon my own, nor deprive my 
congregation of a service which I had always found extremely useful and 
profitable—you deemed it your duty to press the matter of conformity to 
your wishes, by the declaration that such services as those held in Christ 
Church lecture-room, where selections from the Liturgy had always been 
used before the sermon, were irregular. I informed you that in this opin- 
ion, | could not agree with you, and that I was supported in my convic- 
tions by the known practice of a number of our bishops and prominent 
clergy. As an evidence, however, of my respectful consideration for you, 
and mindful of the fact, that we had been conjointly invited to the Rector- 
ship of Christ Church, which’you declined, whilst | accepted, I proceeded 
to give you a standing invitation, whenever you found yourself at home 
in Baltimore, disengaged from any immediate Episcopal duty, and disposed 
to preach, to come and occupy the pulpit of Christ Church. Having been 
informed that you were anxious to remove from Covurtland street, [ also 
availed myself of that occasion to tender to you the occupancy of the par- 
sonage house of Christ Church, which was unnecessarily large for me, and 
I offered to rent a house elsewhere for myself and family. I name these 
things for the purpose of showing you, that whilst on the ground of principle 
I was constrained to differ with you, I was disposed in every way in my 
power to concilitate and accommodate you. 

It has been my painful experience, however, and that of the clergy with 
whom in sentiment and practice I sympathize, to discover that, no matter 
how carefully we have endeavored to avoid it, our mode of serving our 
heavenly Master, and advancing the spiritual welfare of our Church, sub- 
jected us to unprecedented Episcopal interference, admonitions and judi- 
cial proceedings most annoying to us and vexatious to our congregations. 
The consequence has been, that one after another, a considerable number 
of the clerical brethren with whom I found myself associated, have re- 
signed and retired from this Diocese, whilst others are preparing to follow 

es 


f - 


8 


them. Thus we know full well, and from mournful experience, that we 
are offensive to yourself and the majority to whom you refer; and why ? 
Because our principles and views of this Church, and of our duty in it, 
and to it, and to others beyond it, are what they are. 

But, Right Reverend Sir, can you fail to perceive that the ecclesiastical 
principles, doctrinal views and practices, in acvordance therewith, of your- 
self and the majority referred to, are also ‘an offence” to us, a minority 
of your brethren of the clergy and laity of this Diocese? Have we not 
respectfully remonstrated, publicly and privately, collectively and indivi- 
dually, against not a few of your official acts and measures, and those of 
the majority adverted to, when the same were pressed upon us? Have we 
not implored to be permitted to serve God and this Church, and others 
around it, in the enjoyment of our never-before-questioned ‘‘perfect free- 
dom ?”? And this on the ground, not that we wished to interfere with 
yourselves, but that we begged you would not interfere with us? 1! do 
not specify particulars, for that would be manifestly improper, but refer in 
general to the well-known position which you occupy, and to the princi- 
ples which you hold and advocate, as distinguished from those which are 
with equal conviction of duty, held and advocated by the minority to 
whom | have referred, and among them by him who now has the honor 
to address you. It is then well known, that two totally distinct and well- 
defined systems of ecclesiastical and doctrinal views and practices arising 
therefrom, are now embraced in this Diocese. The immediate occasion of 
this correspondence is but one instance among many, in which these two 
systems show their unavoidable offensiveness one to the other. And now] 
most earnestly call your attention to this plain and obvious view of the 
case. We are, in our principles and practices, an offence to you and yours 
—whilst you and yours are equally an offence to us. 

Permit me then to say, that, whilst I deplore the excitement of a judi- 
cial trial, and the exacerbation of feeling so apt to grow out of it, yet as 
you have taken the initiative step, I have no alternative but to meet it, and 
trust and hope that salutary results will grow out of it in the good provi- 
dence of God. If it be decided that the principles laid down in your com- 
munications to me of the 4th and 9th of this month, are to be enforced, 
and that that moderation for which this Church has hitherto been distin- 
guished, is now to be abandoned—why, it will follow that the system of 
ecclesiastical and doctrinal views with which you are identified, must 
here exclusively prevail, and then, as a certain consequence, it will be man- 
ifest that terms of communion of a most extraordinary, if not, as we view 
them, sinful nature, are presented to us, and a most painful necessity will 
then be before me, and probably before others also, both of the clergy and 
laity. 

Ih conclusion, | have only to state, that during a ministry of more than 
twenty-six years, [ have been in the practice of ‘‘combining with” ‘‘other 
denominations of Christians,”’ in various, and some of them consecutive 
services, conducted under no other authority than the law of love to our 
common Lord and Saviour. During the meetings of the Diocesan Con-. 
ventions of Ohio—and I believe the Same custom obtains in Virginia—the 
pulpits of all the evangelical denominations of Christians are occasionally 
offered to our clergy, in the same spirit of Christian courtesy with which 
the Eutaw Street Methodist Episcopal Church pulpit was recently offered 
to me, and has been occupied by our brethren. I have preached in churches 
of, | know not how many different denominations, and upon one occasion 
with a Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church by my side. I have 
officiated in steamboats and public hotels—in soldier’s barracks—in alms- 


. v 


houses and hospitals, and even in the public streets of our city, afew years 
since, when the alarming increase of municipal crime seemed, as now, to 
call for extraordinary efforts to leven the vast multitudes around us with 
the truths of the blessed gospel. I have united with my brethren of other 
denominations, in Bible Societies, and for seven years have been honored . 
with the office of President of the Maryland Branch of the American Tract 
Society ; in the service of which, its officers and managers, clergy and 
laity of different denominations of Christians, combine in consecutive 
religious services—praying together, and working together in the diffusion 
of those truths which are equally dear to us all. {am a life member and 
director in the ‘‘American and Foreign and Christian Alliance,” an asso- 
ciation of clergy and laity of several denominations of Christians, whose 
chief object is to maintain, defend and promote, the distinctive principles 
of the Protestant Reformation: and I here solemnly declare that I have yet 
to hear of the first instance in which any injury has ever resulted to the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in particular, or to religion in general, from 
such combinations. Of the very moderate usefulness which I may have 
been permitted to render to my fellow men, and to my own several con- 
gregations, I believe a large share will be found in connection with these, 
associations ; nor am I willing to forego them, during the short time which 
my God and Saviour may permit me, his most unworthy servant, to con- 
tinue in his service. I shall never interfere with others of my respected 
brethren of the ministry who conscientiously differ with me in these points, 
but my Christian liberty and obligations must not be abridged by them. 
Such, Right Reverend and Dear Sir, are my fixed determinations. Pro- 
ceed, therefore, in the purposes indicated in your letter of the 9th, and 
with the help of God, | shall endeavor to prepare for the consequences. 
Your friend and obedient servant, 
H. V. D. JOHNS, 
Rector of Christ Church, Baltimore. 


Baxtimore, Oct. 24th, 1851. 

Reverend and Dear Sir—Your reply to my note of Oct. 9th, was re- 
ceived by me last night, on my return to town. 

I consider it but just to you to lay a copy before the Standing Committee, 
to be added to the correspondence already sent to that body. The Commit- 
tee will thus have the advantage of acquaintance with your views of the . 
case, as now more fully stated. 5 

In your communication there are some statements which imply a de- 
gree of misapprehension of fact to which they relate. ‘ 

You do not ‘use my words” in my application of them, when you apply 
the term “offence” to the ‘ecclesiastical principles,”’ “doctrinal views,” 
and ‘‘entire position” of ‘‘a portion of the clergy and laity of this Diocese.” 
I have made no such application of that term. Itis entirely and exclusively 
your own. I used the word “offence”’ of a single public act; and I used 
it, not in the modern colloquial sense, but in that of Scripture, which can 
only apply to acts, not “principles,” &c. 

Your account of an interview had nine years since, does not in all res- 
pects perfectly accord with my recollections. But that is of the less im- 
portance, inasmuch as at that time you were not a clergyman of this Dio- 
cese, and the Rectorship of Christ Church, with all its rights, duties, &c., 
may be presumed to have been then as much at my disposal as at yours, 
inasmuch as we had been jointly invited to acceptance of the charge, and 
that invitation was then still under my consideration. 


10 


Of the motive which you ascribe to ‘‘a considerable number of clerical 
brethren,” who have ‘‘retired from this Diocese,” I have received no in- 
formation from them, and have of course no means of forming a reliable 
opinion. But I had been led to suppose that the changes to which it is. 
presumable that you allude, had been occasioned by the reasons ordinarily 
found operative in such cases. m 

It appears, from your statement, that they have been dissatisfied that. 
their remonstrances have not produced changes in my official acts and 
measures, and in those of the majority of the clergy and laity of the Dio- 
cese. It is satisfactory to know that such is the case, and not the reverse. 
Had I, or ‘‘the majority adverted to,’ attempted to produce changes in 
‘the official acts and measures” of the clerical brethren alluded to, the case. 
would have been very different. You speak, indeed, of “imploring to be 
permitted to serve God, and this Church, and others around it, in perfect 
freedom ;” but do not specify particulars. It might have been difficult to 
instance a case in which any clergyman in this Diocese had been interfer- 
red with in the performance of his ministerial duties by the Bishop or other 
authority of the Diocese. Certainly, if any such case can be produced, it 
will be found among those whose leanings are in a very different direction 
from your own. , 

Whether the case out of which this correspondence has grown, is one 
heretofore, and until now, of common occurrence in this Church, isa 
question of fact, to be settled by appeal to evidence. Not only have { no 
knowledge of the alleged fact, but I do not remember before to have met 
with the allegation. All that you recapitulate in the close of your letter, 
is to be coupled with the fact, that during the last nine years, your Bishop, 
known by you to entertain very different views of policy and duty, has 
never, in any way, directly or indirectly, interfered with your procedures. 
Surely there is more than one inference to be drawn from these facts! _ 

The question is one of limit to an admitted liberty. There certaioly is 
such limit somewhere. Very honest and allowable differences of opin- 
ion may exist as to the fixture of that limit. Such differences, when 
they result in action, must occasion questions that authority alone can set- 
tle. In the present case—honestly believing it to be a duty of my office 
to point out to you a limit, required by considerations which I presented 
to you—I have acted in all good faith, and, I trust, courtesy You, I 
doubt not, with equally conscientious adherence to your (as I believe, erro- 
neous) views of duty, have taken the course that seemed to you the proper 
one. It remains for those to whom the Church has committed the guar- 
dianship of her discipline, to say whether that discipline has been in- 
fringed. To them it has been submitted as a question of fact, with no 
imputation against character, or impeachment of actual or implied mo- 
tive. Very faithfully and truly, your friend and brother, 


W. R. WHITTINGHAM. 
Rev. H. V. D. Jouns, D. D. 





Battimore, Dec. 2nd, 1851. 


Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir—In your last communication to me you observe; 
“Your account of an interview had nine years since, does not in all re- 
spects perfectly accord! with my recollections. But that is of the less im- 
portance, inasmuch as at that time you were not a clergyman of this Dio- 
cese, and the Rectorship of Christ Church, with all its rights, duties, &c., 
may be presumed to have been then as much at my disposal as at yours, 
inasmuch as we had been jointly invited to acceptance of the charge, and. 
that invitation was then still under my consideration.” i 


11 


Now, it so happens, that your own written language is the strongest 
presumption, if not the exact proof, to the contrary of what you assert in 
the sentence, underscored. In a communication to the Vestry of Christ 
Church, through their committee, dated July 27th, 1842, “concerning the 
invitation to the Rectorship of Christ Church,” you observe, “After ma- 
ture and anxious deliberation, these last considerations have prevailed, 
and I feel bound, at whatever sacrifice of personal inclination and sanguine 
hopes, to refrain from a step which might tend to the diminution of that 
confidence and affection for which I have so much reason to be grateful to 
the whole Diocese and to every part.” 

The ‘‘considerations” referred to, you had previously declared to be of 
such a nature as to produce “timidity and hesitation in the anticipation of 
ulterior consequences which might result from any change in your rela- 
tion to the Diocese at large.”? You were here supposed to refer to your 
maintenance in part by an Episcopal Fund, created with the understand- 
ing that you were to give your whole time to the general interests of the 
Diocese, and not to be restricted by any parochial charge. 

Your letter to the Vestry of Christ Church proceeds: “your offer there- 
fore’’—the invitation to the Rectorship—‘‘than which nothing could be 
more liberal, confiding and kind, nor anything more truly grateful to my 
feelings in every point of view, I must and do, under a constraining sense 
of duty, gratefully and affectionately decline.” 

Again, you observe, in the conclusion of the letter: “Although, after 
what passed between you and myself in our personal interview, I felt 
bound to wait until I should have communicated with the Rev. Mr. Johns 
on the subject; my decision has been wholly uninfluenced by such com- 
munication, and based solely on considerations of official duty.”?_ 

The decision set forth in this communication of yours to the Vestry of 
Christ Church, and on the precise grounds here recited, you made known 
to me orally at the interview held at your house in Courtland street, re- 
ferred to in my letter of October 15th, when you informed me that you 
declined, and i informed you that I should accept the invitation to Christ 
Church, Baltimore. How then, can you say, after such a clear showing 
of your decisions in the premises—which you tell the Vestry, were wholly 
‘“‘uninfluenced by”? your communications with me, at the said interview, 
but were ‘‘based solely on considerations of official duty,” all of which 
were operative prior to our meeting, and are by you expressly acknow- 
ledged as having procured your decision—how can you say that “that in- 
vitation”” (the call to Christ Church) ‘‘was then still under my considera- 
tion?’ Your letter to the Vestry shows that your mind was made up on 
the matter in advance of seeing me, and so you stated to me at the very 
commencement of our interview. It is true, that you did not notify the 
Vestry of your decision until after you saw me, but the evidence that 
it was, “‘after mature and anxious deliberation,”’ formed before you saw 
me, is set forth by your own words as quoted. Thus it is manifest that 
your assertions in your favor of October 24th, 1851, relating to this mat- 
ter, are at variance with your letter to the Vestry of Christ Church, of 
July 27th, 1842. 

But you observe: “The Rectorship of Christ Church with all its rights, 
duties, &c., may be presumed to have been then as much at my disposal 
as at yours.””? Here allow me to remind you, that ‘‘then,”? which was 
the 26th of July, 1842, the Rectorship of Christ Church was in the 
hands of’ the Rev. John Johns, D. D., whose term of service did not ex- 
pire until the first of the ensuing October. 

But you now remind me, that at “‘that time” I “was not a clergyman 


: 12 


of this Diocese.””? I greatly regret that you overlooked this fact at the “‘in- 
terview”’ held between us, at your own request, and at your own house. 
Surely, Rt. Rev. Sir, it was a singular procedure, thus to hold a confer- 
ence with a Presbyter of another Bishop, and to admonish him, face to 
face, on the subject of his official conduct, and to charge him with con- 
templating irregularities in lecture-room services! I ought to have re- 
quested you, if I were guilty of violations of order, to have made your 
communication to the Rt. Rev. C. P. McIlvaine, D. D., my Diocesan. 

But further, Rt. Rev. Sir, if there had been the alleged irregularities in 
the lecture-room services of Christ Church, Baltimore, (with which, as I 
was not at that time aclergyman of this Diocese, of course I had nothing 
to do, and now am only a witness to the fact that you made such remarks, ) 
why did you not correct the evil in the practice and person of my predeces- 
sor, the Rev. John Johns, D. D., now Assistant Bishop in a neighboring 
Diocese? For month after month, the irregularities complained of to me, 
had been before you, perpetrated by one of your own Presbyters; and yet, 
so faras | know and believe, you never so much as even whispered to 
him an “‘affectionate request,” to say nothing of an “‘official admonition” 
on the subject ; but, on the contrary, you were, I believe, one of his presen- 
tors at his consecration to the Episcopate, and did him the kindness to 
preach the sermon on that occasion. I am-sorry the tone of the expres- 
sions in this part of your last letter, brought these things again to my recol- 
lection. 

In reply to my declaration in the letter of Oct. 15th—that no matter 
how carefully we have endeavored (referring to the minority in this Dio- _ 
cese) to avoid it, our mode of serving our Heavenly Master, and advancing 
the spiritual welfare of our Church, subjected us to unprecedent Episco- 
pal interference, admonitions, and judicial proceedings, most annoying to 
us and vexations to our congregations’’—you observe: “It might have 
been difficult to instance a case in which any clergyman in this Diocese 
had been interfered with in the performance of his ministerial duties, by 
the Bishop or other authority of the Diocese.”’ 

In answer to this declaration, allow me respectfully to present to you 
the following from a multitude of similar cases : 

1. The well-known ‘“‘case” of the Rev. Joseph Trapnell, Jr., late Rec- 
tor of St. Andrew’s Church, Baltimore, who was presented and tried for 
defending the point, that the administration of the Holy Communion was 
no part of the duty to be performed by the Bishop at an Episcopal visi- 
tation. I know there was sundry questions and specifications raised in 
this trial, but the main matter originated in a clear case, in which the Pres- 
byter felt himself interfered with in the discharge of his ministerial duties, 
and, by informing you that the Lord’s Supper was to be administered on 
the very Sunday before the one appointed for your visitation, indicated his 
‘earnest desire that it should not be so soon repeated, and also his wish to 
avoid the painful issue to which you forced him. That no authority then 
existed in the laws of this Church, for the right which you then upheld 
and pressed, is now demonstrated by the addition, made at the General 
Convention of 1850, to the Canon relating to Episcopal visitations, grant- 
ing authority to Bishops to administer the Lord’s Supper at a visitation ; 
consequently your claim, then urged, even to the trial of your Presbyter, 
was without law. 

Case 2nd. Your threat of presentment of the Rev. John P. Robbins, 
of Snowhill, Eastern Shore of Maryland, to the Standing Committee, made, 
in your letter to him, dated Baltimore, July, (the figures are illegible,) 1847, 
on the ground that he had violated the 36th Canon of the General Conven- 
tion, which Mr. Robbins most emphatically denied. 


13 


I have before me the’ written statements of this case, given by the ag-_ 
grieved Presbyter, from which I make the following narrative :— 

“The Rev. Mr. Kennard, a clergyman of the Methodist Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, came to Mr. Robbins’ house as agent of the Maryland State 
Bible Society;?? ‘‘and asked him (Mr. R.) if he would aid him in the cir- 
culation of the Word of God without note or comment: to which Mr. Rob 
bins replied, he would.” The agent then asked Mr. Robbins if he would 
present the Bible cause to his people; Mr. Robbins assented, and on the 
next “‘preaching day, after the regular morning service, Mr. Robbins ad- 
dressed his congregation on the Value of the Word of God and the impor- 
tance of their having it especially in their hearts, and also having copies 
of the Scriptures in their:houses. After he had concluded, the Rev. Mr. 
Kennard arose and stated the object of his agency, and then the services 
were concluded with prayer.” 

From this statement, itis evident Mr. Robbins was the officiating cler- 
gyman, and did nothing more than allow an agent of the Bible Society to. 
give notice that he was in the vicinity, and what was his object in being 
there. “Mr. Robbins bitterly complained of the act of his Bishop in pre- 
judging this case, and vouching for the truth of a mere rumor, instead of 
writing to him for the facts, and giving him an opportunity of a hearing, 
before you formed your opinion and let him know (I quote your own words) 
that “in strict discharge of your office, you should be compelled at once to, 
lay the case before the Standing Committee of the Diocese, in order to the 
publie correction of a public violation of the order of the Church.’”’? You. 
then proceed to inform Mr. Robbins, whose guilt you assume without a 
hearing, that if he will ‘be cautious not again to disturb the order of the 
Church, you will hold yourself at liberty to take no notice of what has 
passed, and proceed no furher in the matter.” 

“But,” you observe, “unless so enabled to stay proceedings, it will be my 
painful duty to put the matter in the hands of the Standing Committee, 
and the new trouble and disgrace of another Ecclesiastical trial [mark how 
frequent such things were] will be brought upon the church.” Strange to 
say, after having thus shaken the rod of discipline ‘inthe face of your un;, 
heard Presbyter, you express the hope that he may be able to explaii his. 
conduet to your satisfaction. Surely, Rt. Rev. Sir, you here have a case 
which shows that the language of my last letter to you came far short of 
the reality. What Presbyter of this church, worthy of his name and of- 
fice (and my Rev. brother Mr.’ Robbins is eminently so) could bear to be 
so treated? Could he afterwads think of his bishop with those emotions 
of respect and affection, which we most earnestly desire ever to cherish to- 
wards our Keclesiastical superior ? 

Case 3. In May, 1844, you sent a circular of questions to the clergy, 
wardens and vestries of the Diocese, which so materially interfered with 
your clergy, that eleven of them addressed to you a respectful remonstrance, 
dated June 1, 1844, expressive of their deep regret at the reception of such 
a communication, the tendency of which they held to be to engross and 
consolidate the rights of the clergy and laity in the hands of the Bishop, 
and thus endangered, by undue extension, the lawful and salutary power 
of the episcopate: é 

Case 4.’ At your last visitation of Christ Church, Baltimore, on March 
7th, 1847, more than four years and a half ago, when. after the entire ser- 
vices of the occasion were over, and you had retired to the vestry rapm, in 
company with myself and others, you called me to task for not pausing in 
the “evening prayer, and affording you an opportunity of reading the dec- 
laration of absolution,” stating that I had forgotten that such was your 


14 


custom. To this I replied that I had not forgotten what was known to be 
your custom, but that I felt bound to obey the rubric, and so read the 
declaration myself; that if, before I had entered the desk, you had expressed 
a desire to read the evening prayer, nothing would have given me more 
pleasure, than to have had you officiate in the desk as well as in the 
chancel, but that, on principle, I could not sanction the custom to which 
you referred. You immediately proceeded to declare, that you had a right 
to it and to the whole service also; to which I respectfully stated my ina- 
bility to accede, pleading conscience under the rubric ; whilst you, in the 
me earnest manner, plead conscience also, as urging you to insist on your 
claim. 

A similar occurrence took place subsequently, at your visitation of All 
Saints parish, Frederick Town, where you urged the same claim, and 
when the Rector, the Rev. W. N. Pendleton, for precisely such reasons as 
determined me, was constrained to differ with you, you deemed it your 
duty to remain in the vestry room until evening prayer was read, and not 
until then did you take your seat in the chancel. With these facts fresh in 
memory, I leave it to yourself, Rt. Rev. Sir, to judge of our amazement 
when we read, on page 136 of the Journal of the last General Convention, 
in a resolution offered by Bishop Mead, moved by Bishop Mellvaine, and 
seconded by Bishop Potter, that the “Bishop of the Diocese of Maryland 
has declared that the only claim he asserts, is the right of administering the 
holy communion in each parish at his regular visitations,” &c. 

if you meant, when you made that declaration before the House of Bish- 
ops, that you did not intend hereafter to assert the claim which you so ve- 
hemently insisted upon at your visitations of Christ Church, Baltimore, 
and All Saints parish, Frederick Town, from my heart I rejoice. But if 
you intended to deny that you ever raised that claim, I am silent. 

Shall I proceed, in answer to the invitation made in your last letter, but 
for which you should never have heard from me again on those melancholy 
topics, or have I said enough to satisfy you that no exaggeration character- 
ized my declarations to you, in the communication of October 15th. You 
ent instances, and I have been compelled most reluctantly to give 

em. ; f 

There is but one point more which I feel constrained to notice. In your 
letter of October 9th, you observe, referring to your former communication, 
that you had ‘‘no resource but to lay our correspondence before the Standing 
Committee of the Diocese, in order that that body may determine whether 
or not your communication of the 4th was such a Godly admonition and 
‘judgment,’ as at my ordination to the Priesthood of this Church, I solemn- 
ly declared my obligation reverently to obey, and with a glad mind and 
will to follow and submit to.”” I am at no loss, from your action in the 
premises, to infer what is your opinion in the case. Suffer me here to 
quote the words of the late venerable William White, D. D., first Bishop 
of Pennsylvania, who being dead yet speaketh. | refer to his Commenta- 
ries on the questions and answers in the offices for the ordination of 
Deacons and Priests, ‘‘recommended to the patronage of all the clergy and 
members generally of the Church,” by Bishops Griswold, Bowen, Brow- 
nell, H. U. Onderdonk, Meade, Stone, B. T. Onderdonk, and Ives. (See 
edit., New York, 1833, page 44.) The author observes: “when the pas- 
sage speaks of Godly admonitions, it must have respect to some standard 
by which they should be directed. This standard must be, the various 
established institutions of the Church, and not the private opinion of the 
Bishop. It is well known, that the Church, from which this is descended, 
like the State to which it is allied, is under a government of law, and not 


15 


of will; and we cannot suppose that ours, professing to follow it in the 
leading features of its system, should have designed to reject this, so con- 
genial to the still more moderate degree of authority, which it will be pos- 
sible, in present circumstances, to exert. [If it should be asked, Who shall 
be the arbiter on any question which may be raised, as to the fitness of the 
interposition of the Bishop? The answer is, the question being understood 
of admonition, out of the line of strict Ecclesiastical proceeding, which 
ought of course to be governed by a determinate standard, that each party 
must judge for himself, as he shall answer for this and for every other part 
of his conduct to Almighty God.” : é : 
The Bishop puts the very case which has arisen. You, Right Rev. Sir, 
addressed to me an official admonition, which, for the reasons stated, I 
could not obey, but in reference to which I felt bound to do what Bishop 
White supposes in such cases may be done—-judged for myself, as I shall 
answer to Almighty God. [If a Deacon could do so, much more a Pres- 
byter—Bishop White supposes the case a Deacon. [ must be allowed 
then, under the sanction of such high authority, backed by so many Bish- 
ops, to repel with honest feeling, the intimation of having violated my 
ordination vows. [t is, moreover, very remarkable, that in your last letter 
to me, you should seem to think you had gone too far in this matter, and 
may have indulged language too strong: for you say, alluding to alleged 
instances of clergy of this Church officiating, as was done by myself in the 
instance out of which this correspondence has grown: ‘The question is 
one of limit to an admitted liberty. Very honest and allowable differences 
of opinion may exist, as to the fixture of that limit.” Why, here, Right 
Rev. Sir, you yield all I have been contending for: you say there is an 
‘admitted liberty,”? and that the point at issue is one about which we may 
honestly differ. How, then, in such a case, could you think of subjecting 
our Presbyter to what you call “the trouble and disgrace of a public trial?” 
hy this prolix correspondence? Why wish to limit the liberty of your 
clergy to preach the gospel? There are fifty thousand souls in this city, 
who seldom, if ever, hear the glad tidings of salvation. It is a subject of 
intense anxiety here, and elsewhere, as I learn from the pages of our 
Church papers in New York and Liverpool, England, how we shall suc- 
ceed in carrying the means of grace to the thousands and tens of thousands 
now flooding our cities and country. O! Right Rev. Sir, this is not a day 
to shorten the trumpet of the gospel! I wish we had preachers and in- 
creased facilities within our own communion, to meet this alarming swell 
of unevangelized population. Alas! we have not. I look beyond our 
own communion, and perceive the various Evangelical and Protestant de- 
nominations, differing with us in matters of ecclesiastical organization, but 
agreeing with us and “teaching apostolic doctrine,” to use the words of 
Archbishop Sumner, and I rejoice to believe that again, to use the words 
of the same distinguished writer, “they may yet be owned of God,” and I 
believe they are, “as faithful ministers of his word and sacraments, and 
enjoy his blessing on their ministrations.” I thank God for every voice 
that directs the lost sinner to the Shepherd of Israel. St. Paul rejoiced that 
Christ was preached even of contention, and shall not we, when we know 
that he is, by these brethren, preached of love? While we cannotall yet see 
“eye to eye,” surely many of us are enabled to feel heart to heart. Beau’ 
tiful is that saying of the late Doctor Archibald Alexander, “Christian love 
pants after unity with all the real children of God.?”? What would our 
country be, this day, if these various bodies of Protestant Christians around 
us were silenced? They are doing a great work, and none more than the 
Methodist clergy. When we can do them a service, why should we re- 


16 


fuse it? We shall reach them more effectually by love, than by invective, 
O! then, Right Rev. Sir, strive not to ‘‘limit”? the liberty which you so 
kindly admit, to preach the gospel whenever,and wherever we have oppor- 
tunity and strength to say, ‘Behold the Lamb,of God.” J was happy in 
being permitted to give my testimony to the truth as it is in Jesus, beforea 
thousand people, in the Kutaw Street Church, and to receive from my 
Methodist brethren, on that occasion, such truly considerate kindness as I 
can never forget. But I now candidly confess the existence of a sorrow, 
that continually arose in my mind: it was that in preaching the gospel of 
Christ to an audience gathered trom every section of our city, I could not 
have had your full and cordial approbation. What would I not have given 
if your views of duty could have allowed you to be present! I think the 
spectacle then exhibited, would have swept away your objections, from 
first to last. ’ 

Having waited thus long to hear the decision of the Standing Committee 
on the case submitted to them, and aware of their having met and adjourn- 
ed since your last communication to me, may I beg to hear from you, and 
to have acopy of the minutes of the Committee relating to this subject. 

Your friend, and obedient servant, Pat 
HENRY V. D. JOHNS. 


Bartimore, December 3, 1851. 

Reverend and Dear Sir—I have given to your long letter of yesterday, 
the serious consideration prompted by respect for the writer, but ae 
warranted by the tissue of misapprehensions of which it is made up. 

Coneerning the delicacy and propriety of your resort to my, correspond- 
ence with the Vestry of Christ Church, [ shall make no remark. 

The inconsistency which you think you find between my last letter to 
you, and that correspondence will be apparent, as I conceive, to no mind 
differently constituted, or under different influences, from yourown. 

I said lately, that at a certain interview with you, I had the proposal of 
the Rectorship of Christ Church, still under consideration. In a letter de- 
clining the Rectorship, I stated that I did it on grounds independent of that 
interview, and by a conclusion arrived at previously to its occurrence. 
Now, there was surely some object of the interview. What was it—what 
could itbe, but to learn whether there were any grounds or reasons for mod- 
ification of my previously formed conclusion? And what else was such 
inquiry but ‘‘consideration’”? of the proposal to which it had relation ? 
Really, the question is too simple for discussion. pays 

Your apprehension of my conversation at the interview im question, as 
having assumed the form of an ‘‘admonition” and “charge”? is equally in- 
accurate. As persons jointly invited to.a cure of souls, we then discussed, 
as ] thought, in courtesy and amity, the principles on which such cure 
should be discharged. Had any undue assumption of authority on my 
part taken place, | should probably have heard of it, before this long inter- 
ya] had elapsed. 

As Iam not aware that I have at any time made complaint of the con- 
duct of your predecessor in the Rectorship of Christ Church, I have no 
occasion to defend my course with regard to him. ari; 

You are mistaken as to my haying preached at. the consecration of 
Bishop Johns. . It isa matter of no importance; but I call your attention 
to the mistake, to show that you have need not to put too implicit confi- 
dence in your recollection of things so long past. se 


17 


To show that I am in error m saying that “it might have been difficult 
to instance a case in which ‘any clergyman in this Diocese had been inter- 
fered- with, in the performance of ministerial duties, by the Bishop or 
authority of the Diocese,”” you allege four cases. Their production is 
abundant proof of the truth of my assertion. Two of them are cases of 
interference on the part of Presbyters of the Diocese with the Bishop, in 
the performance of his official duties—one of them decided so to have 
been by a competent tribunal; the other by the consent of the very great 
majority of the clergy in a view different from your own, and the gradual 
relinquishment of the ground taken in opposition, by those concerned, upon 
a more thorough discussion of the question. 

In a third case—that of the Rev. Mr. Robbins—I interfered, in kindness 
to him, and with success, and to prevent the presentment with which you 
represent me as having threatened him. He was formally charged with a 
violation of the Canons, and by my interference I obtained from him 
grounds to justify me in setting the charge aside. 

The fourth case, relating to occurrences at Christ Church and in Freder- 
ick, bears, on the face of your own statement, the evidence that in each 
instance it was the Bishop, not the Presbyter, that was interrupted in his 
course. 

Your allegation of inconsistency between statements made in the Gene- 
ral Convention of 1850, and the recollections and representations of others, 
on the subject of certain alleged claims against which you and others 
presented a memorial to that Convention, induces me now to repeat dis- 
tinctly the declaration that I have not at any time asserted any official right 
to read the Declaration of Absolution when morning or evening prayer was 
said by a Presbyterin my presence; but have uniformly declared that having 
established and long continued the usage before any opposition was set up, 
I was willing, (though fully believing the Bishop to have the right to take 
any part of the service at his visitation,) for the sake of those who pleaded 
conscientious scruples, to accept it as @ courtesy, and accordingly, asked it 
as such. ‘The misapprehension of yourself and others must have origina- 
ted in my assertion of the right of the Bishop at his visitation to read the 
whole service himself, if he should so choose—a right which | suppose never 
to have been disputed or doubted. 

‘Your supposition that in my last letter I “made an invitation” for further 
discussion of “these melancholy topics,” “demanded instances,” and 
yet, ‘‘thinking I had gone too far,” ‘‘yielded all I had been contending for,” 
are all equally unfounded. A careful reperusal of the letter will, I think, sat- 
isfy you, that in each particular you have strained its sense beyond the easy, 
obvious meaning. It is, however, enough for me to say now, that your 
constructions were not designed by me. 

Your earnest appeals for my sympathy with your zeal for preaching the 
blessed gospel were hardly needed. You deceive yourself, and are in dan- 
ger of deceiving others, if you suppose that I wish otherwise than for the 
very largest extension of the exercise of your excellent gifts in that voca- 
tion. The Rector of a congregation possessed of a large commodious 
Church in the heart of our great city, and of ample revenues, and blessed 
with a kind and zealous vestry, can be at no loss for opportunities of pro- 
claiming the gospel of salvation, nor hindered in his work of preaching by 
anything but the limits of his own physical ability. You perfectly know 
that if you were to open Christ Church for daily morning, and evening 
service, and on every occasion take the opportunity to preach awakening 
sermons, you would have not only my warm approval, but my zealous 
co-operation were it desired. How then, can you charge me with striving 


18 


to limit your liberty to preach the gospel, merely because I fail to perceive- 
the necessity of its being preached specially in Eutaw street, by the Rector 
of Christ Church in Gay street? There are parts of our city lying.much 
nearer than Eutaw street, to the sphere of your especial responsibilities 
and duties as a minister of this Church, in which I most earnestly wish 
that your zeal might lead you more frequently to preach the Gospel, and 
should heartily rejoice in your making efforts to extend the Church, for in- 
stance, the very large section of our city lying north-east of Christ Church, 
rapidly growing and already densely populated, but as yet amere wilder- 
ness as regards our form of doctrine, discipline and worship, and very 
scantily provided for by any form of Christian public ministrations. There, 
or in the dark recesses of Potter or Orleans streets (still nearer Christ 
Church,) I could understand and admire the aggressive zeal which should 
labor in season and out of season in preaching the word; but in the pre- 
cincts of the Park, almost within a stone’s throw of a Protestant Episcopal 
Church, open twice every day for public worship, I own I am at a loss to 
perceive any such extraordinary call for your ministrations as you seem to 
find pressing upon your conscience. 

I received the decision of the Standing Committee upon the case, which 
T informed you I should submit to that body, in a paper of some length, 
expressing sufficiently decided views of such a course as that which you 
have deemed it right to take; but as the paper is part of an official corres- 
pondence, I hold myself at liberty, in the exercise of what I deem a wise 
and just discretion, to decline being the channel of its transmission to a 
third party. Should you think proper to apply to the president of the 
Standing Committee for a copy, he would no doubt, exercise his due dis- 
cretion in the case, and I can have no objection. 

Had any action concerning you been resolved on or advised, you would, 
of course, have had the earliest possible information. Such not having 
been the case, I have allowed my own doubts concerning the course 
adopted by the Committee to influence my determination in the premises. 

Very faithfully and truly, 
Your friend and brother, 
r W. R. WHITTINGHAM. 
Rev. Henry V. D. Jouns, D. D. 


aan ane ee ead 


Baxutrmore, Feb. 9th, 1852. 

Right Reverend and Dear Sir,—Your favor of the 3d of Dee. is before 
me. Its tone of mingled courtesy, and superciliousness served only to 
excite a smile, but shall not provoke me to the utterance of a sentence 
disrespectful to my ecclesiastical superior. The answer which [ now send 
you, has in part been written some weeks, but numerous engagements 
have prevented my copying it. 

Your observation concerning “the delicacy and propriety of my resort 
to your correspondence with the Vestry of Christ Church,” renders it 
proper for me to say, that the extracts in my former letter, on this sub- 
ject, were taken from the public records of the vestry of Christ Church, Bal- 
timore. Of course, your exception has no force. 

Alluding to the interview held at your house on the evening of July 26, 
1842, you state, “Now, there was surely some object of the interview, 
What was it, what could it be, but to learn, whether there were any grounds 
or reasons for modification of my previously formed conclusion As 
you here admit the very pointfor whichI quoted from the public records 


19 


of Christ Church, viz. that you had ‘previously formed your conclusion”? 
and had thus, so far as you were concerned, “declined” the invitation to 
Christ Church, I have no occasion to say anything further on this head: 
since, if you had previously to seeing me, formed your “conclusion” to 
decline, it is not easy to conceive how youcould still have the subject of 
“acceptance under consideration,” as you stated you had in a former com- 
munication. 

But, then, you now tell me, “surely there was some object in that in- 
terview,””? &c. Mark, how the case stands! Your own “conclusion”? 
was formed previously to seeing me, for you declare you arrived at it ‘‘on 
grounds independently of the interview.” What then could have been 
the object of this interview ? Your refusal of the invitation to the Rector- 
ship of Christ Church was concluded. You informed me of thesame. I then 
stated to you that I had concluded to accept the invitation. Then ensued 
the conversation relating to the Lecture Room services of Christ Church, 
Baltimore; when you urged your opinions on the same, and when! declined 
agreeing with you, onthe grounds previously stated, you emphatically 
charged irregularity. I plead the contrary, and cited practice and usage, 
and declared that I could not consent to a change which would be a reflec- 
tion on my brother’s ministry and also on my own. Here your object be- 
comes manifest. You sought to obtain from me a promise to forego that 
mode of conducting our Lecture Room services, which my brother, (now 
the assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia,) had found so useful, and to 
which you had reasons to suppose I was attached. You were anxious to 
revolutionize the whole character of these Lecture Room services, and, as 
you expressed yourself, make Christ Church ‘ta model Church.”” Think- 
ing this Church was a tolerably fair model already, and not fond of novel- 
ties, I concluded to follow as nearly as [ could in the footsteps of my pred- 
ecessor, at least until I saw some better way, which, after twenty-five 
years of ministerial labor, I have never yet found. 

I think it is now more thanever apparent that your statements in your 
letter of Oct. 24th in which you say, the invitation to the Rectorship of 
Christ Church was ‘‘still under consideration” at the time of our inter- 
view and the facts, as proved by the records of Christ Church and admit- 
ted by your letter of Dec. 3d, are utterly at variance ; whilst “the motive’ 
which prompted you to solicit that interview at your house, on the 26th 
of July, 1842, is apparent. I now declare that lregard that procedure 
on your part, in its “‘grounds,”? ‘‘reasons,”’ and character—in its reflections 
on the ministry of my predecessor and in its attempt to embarrass my own, 
in contemplation of my transfer within your jurisdiction, as one of the 
most extraordinary—to say no more—that I have ever known, as happening 
in the conduct of any Bishop of this church. I feel wounded, even at this 
distance of time, in having been made the subject of such an attempt, and 
I must frankly confess, that understood, as this matter now is in the ad- 
missions of your last letter, [regard your conduct on that occasion ‘at 
your house, as having been a most ungracious return for the courtesy done 
you by myself, in thus coming to Baltimore and waiting upon you at your 
own particular request. You had, in advance, disposed of the call of the 
Vestry ; I was, however, to be tampered with, and my predecessor struck 
at, over my head, by the charge of “irregularity” in his ministrations! 
Strange proceeding—and in my humble judgment utterly unjustifiable, 
call it by what terms you may. 

Referring to my letter of December 2d, you correct an impression to 
which I referred doubtfully as you will see by my language. JVot having 
heen present at the consecration of the Right Rev. John Johns, D. D., in 


20 


Richmond, I was not positive as to the exact part you took jn that service, 
and hence alluded to it as much. My language was, “You were, I be- 
lieve, one of his presentors at his consecration to the Eipiscopate, and did 
him the kindness to preach the sermon on that occasion.?? The 3d and 
4th words in this sentence—the same which I now underscore—show that 
this particular statement partakes somewhat of the nature of an inquiry. 
A glance at my language relieves both it and myself from all anxiety of 
any injury from your disparaging remark, in reference to a distrust of my 
recollection of past events. in matters of doubtful belief, I am very care- 
ful always to express such doubt, especially in cases of reliance upon 
mere reports from others. Pardon me for being apprehensive that you un- 
intentionally cause much inconvenience to yourself, by seeming to act on 
the very opposite rule; as, for instance, in your late correspondence with 
the Rev. William Goode, of England. 

I now infer, from your correction of the latter incident, for which | thank 
you, that you admit the former, viz. that you were one of the presentors 
of the Rev. John Johns, D. D., at his consecration ; as this, if it be so— 
and it is presumed that it was—is sufficient for my purpose, I dispense 
with the other incidents. All I wished was to prove that you co-operated 
in the consecration of a clergyman to the Episcopate, whom by direct im- 
plication you charged in my presence with being irregular in his ministe- 
rial services. Surely, after this, you can never again be so intensely vigi- 
lant as to extend your supervision beyond the clergy of your own Dio- 
cese, and solicit interviews with them at your own house, affectionately 
admonishing them on the subject of apprehended irregularity. 

Your efforts to evade the facts cited by myself, to show your most un- 
kind and oppressive interference with several of your clergy, as stated in 
my former correspondence with you, are only naked assertions of your 
own views of the course of your official conduct. I have been connected 
with this Diocese, as one of its Presbyters, something like twenty years, a 
period of time considerably more extended than your Episcopate. I have 
lived under two of your predecessors in this high office, and never have I 
known such extraordinary exercise of authority, and such painful disre- 
gard of the feelings of the clergy, as I have witnessed during the last nine 
years. In the instance of the Rev. Mr. Robbins, cited in my last letter, 
and also in my own case, you have acted asif it were a slight affair to 
threaten, and also to present to the Standing Committee your unhappy pres- 
byters who differ with you on points of admitted doubtfulness. It is true, 
in your letter to Mr. Robbins, you speak of “the trouble and disgrace” of 
a public trial; but you evidently rush into such proceedings—witmess 
your late attempt against myself—as if they were of-little consequence. I 
speak with strong emotion on this subject. Twice have! been thus “har- 
rassed’? by yourself; and in the last instance, was kept waiting for weeks, 
ina state of no very agreeable suspense, not being by you apprised of the 
action of the Standing Committee, and only knowing that you had for- 
mally presented me. So easily may the character of a minister of the gos- 
pel be stained, and rumor, with her hundred tongues, set in motion against 
us, that I regard it as a serious injury, even to appear on the records of a 
Standing Committee as charged with being a violator of the Godly order 
of this Church. It is not proper for any clergyman to arrest disciplinary 
process: but I must avail myself of this occasion to implore you, at least, 
to acquaint yourself with the facts of the several cases which may come 
before you, which it is evident, both in Mr. Robbins’ instance, and my own, 
you did not: and also never to present a presbyter for doing that, =. 
in your own words is, ‘an admitted liberty.”? To resort to the “trouble 


“ “21 


“and disgrace” of a public trial in’ such ‘cases, merely to fix a limit. to an 
“admitted liberty,”? as you call it, is a'refinement of cruelty of which I 
am sure no well regulated or generous’ mind .could be guilty: Ministerial 
character, dearer to us than life itself, is not, cannot be safe where such 
practices are permitted. Beneath a government of law we are ‘safe, but 
not otherwise. Laws ‘constructively extorted by severe judicial pro- 
cesses—in other words, the decrees of courts obtained as in ’ the'case of 
the Rev: Joseph Trapnell, may be easily made the very worst instruments 
of oppression. From ‘such calamities may God in mercy save this Church, 
and especially from the consolidation of the éxecutive, legislative and ju- 
dicial power in one man.* The best of men are too fond of power. Wise 
legislation will not seek to inflate this native propensity, but rather to‘re- 
‘strain and abate it. . 

I now approach a part of your letter, which involves a very grave mat- 
ter. Alluding to my ‘‘statement,” “relating to occurrences in) Christ 
Church, and in Frederick,’ you observe: ‘‘your allegation of inconsist- 

-ency, between statements made in the General Convention of 1850,?? 

(which were made by you in the House of Bishops,) “and the recollec- 
‘tions and representations of others on the subject of certain alleged claims, 
against which you and others presented a memorial to that Convention, 
induces me now to repeat distinctly the declaration, that I have not at any 
time asserted my official right to read the Declaration of Absolution, when 
morning or evening prayer was said by a presbyter in my presence; but 
have uniformly declared, that having established and long continued the 
usage before any opposition was set up, I was willing, (though fully be- 
lieving the Bishop to have the right to take any part of the service at his 
‘visitation,) for the sake of those’ who pleaded ‘conscientious scruples, to 
“accept it as a courtesy, and accordingly asked it as such: The misappre- 
hensions of yourself and others, must have’ originated in my assertion of 
the right of the Bishop at his visitation, to read the whole service himself, 
if he should so choose; a right which I suppose never to have been dis- 
puted or doubted.” 

If this language were not in your own hand-writing and over your own 
‘signature, before me, I should be disposed to doubt it, as coming from 
‘you. How you can allow yourself so to speak is perfectly unaccountable 

tome. Observe, then, your inaccuracy-in statement of’ fact, and mark’! 
not a thing heard from others, and in reference to which you ‘might be mis- 
‘taken, but a matter which came before you officially; as a member of the 
House of Bishops, and which closely and particularly affected yourself! 
You say, referring to the memorial from Maryland, that ‘‘I/and others 
presented”? it. Now, turn to your copy of the Journal of the General Con- 
‘vention, and find my name, if you can, as one of the signers of that docu- 
‘ment. ' ‘ i ) 

But 2ndly. You say, “the right of the Bishop at his visitation to’read 
the whole service himself, if he should so choose,”? you suppose has nev- 
er “been doubted or disputed.” : 

Why, over and above the decided resistance made'to this claim by you, 
asserted in the presence of the Rev. W. N. Pendleton and myself, at vis- 
itations of our respective Churches, as before stated to'you, see you not 
in the action of the last General Convention on the alterations proposed in 
the Canon on Episcopal visitations something more’ than a doubt ; yes, 
‘a negative of this claim? I copy from page 41 of the Journal. | 

The following proposed Canon of Episcopal visitations ‘was presented. 
I quote but the first section :— é i w 


22 . 


“1. Every Bishop of this Church shall visit the Churches within his 
Diocese, for the purpose of examining the state of his Church, inspecting 
the behavior of his Clergy, preaching, administering the sacraments, or- 
daining and officiating in the apostolic right of confirmation. Such visita- 
tions may be made as often as once in each year to each Church, and of- 
tener, if the minister of the Church request it. And it is deemed proper 
that such visitations be made once in three years at least, by every Bishop, 
to every Church within his Diocese. The control of the public services at 
the time of such visitations, shall be subject to the direction of the Bishop. At 
all other times, the minister of each congregation shall control the public 
services of the Church of which he has the charge, subject to the rubrics 
and canons of this Church.’ 

Mark the sentence which I have underscored. Its paternity! who can 
doubt? This sweeping annihilation of the true and proper position of the 
Presbyters of this Church, embodies and declares, most fully and faithfully, 
your idea of Episcopal consolidated power, and reduces the body of pres- 
byters to a mere deputy of the Bishop. Instead of passing this section, 
however, we rejoice, on reading on page 185, among other sentences in the 
Journal of 1850, before cited, the following language, offered by Bishop 
Meade, moved by Bishop MclIlvaine, and seconded by Bishop Potter :— 
«Whereas, it is in accordance with the mild spirit of our holy religion and 
the wise moderation of our Church, not to legislate on doubtful points with- 
out great and sufficient reasons ; and whereas, there are many who would 
feel aggrieved by any legislation which would either enforce or deny the 
disputed rights referred to by the memorialists, and whereas, the Bishop 
of Maryland has declared that the only claim he asserts, is the right of ad- 
ministering the holy communion in each parish, at his regular visitations, 
and that he has ever been ready to arrange his visitations so as not to in- 
terfere with the known wishes and conscientious objections of those who 
are opposed to the claim asserted.—Therefore resolved,” &c. Here, surely, 
the record tells us of ‘‘doubt and dispute,’’ whilst the terms of the proposed 
canon speak for increased power. 

You know the result. The Convention struck out of this proposed 
canon every new clause save to authorize the Bishop “to minister the word, 
and if he think fit, the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” when he visited 
the churches within his Diocese. Not Sacraments, but “the Sacrament of 
the Lord’s Supper;” not to “‘control the services, but ‘to minister the 
word.” Now this decided objection to pass the proposed canon as origi- 
nally drawn, and this limiting of the added clauses, as above expressed, 
together with the language used by Bishops Meade, Mcllvaine and Pot- 
ter, surely do more than demonstrate the existence of “doubts,” in regard 
to your alleged and asserted right, and claim for the Bishop to not merely 
“control” the services at a visitation, but actually supersede the Rector 
Presbyter, for the time being, and engross, not by ‘‘courtesy,’’ but by law, 
the whole service. ‘ 

With these recorded facts before. you, the language of your letter of Dec. 
3, 1851, is most extraordinary. + J 

I conclude, by quoting, as coincident testimony, to the close and literal 
truth of my former statements on this subject, the language of the Rev. W. 
N. Pendleton, whose case I presented for your consideration in my last 
communication to you. ‘ 

«| affirm,” writes Mr. Pendleton, “that he (the Bishop, referring to your- 
self,) has again and again, relentlessly pressed the points of the Absolution 
and of the whole service, not only by words, but by actions. And in proof, 
I refer you in brief to documents published by me in the Protestant Church- 
man of May 17th, 1851. 


23 


I here solemnly re-affirm the same declaration, made in my last letter, 
touching the same subject, and I am ready before any tribunal of this 
Churth, to give my open testimony to the absolute contrariety of your dec- 
laration on this point, made before the House of Bishops, and reiterated in 
this correspondence, with the facts at issue. Sacred truth and ministerial 
character are now implicated, and ought to be vindicated, or we shall all 
suffer. 

This is a painful position between a-Bishop, and two of his senior Pres- 
byters; but your declarations, oral and written, have produced it. I trust 
some relief may be found, but fear it is a difficult case. 

Very respectfully, 
Your friend and obedient servant, 
HENRY V. D. JOHNS. 


P.S. In reply to your allusions to daily services, Potter Street, &c., in 
your last letter, allow me to say that Christ Church, its Assistant, Missionary 
and Rector have seven services each week, besides other meetings for 
prayer and benevolence, and counts about four hundred visits by its clergy 
each month. Surely this is a full report of duty. But let me tell you what 
this congregation have not had. We have not had an Episcopal visitation 
or confirmation for five years, wanting less than one month ; and this, too, 
while our Bishop has been formally notified, more than a year since, that . 
a class was waiting for him, and the canon on Episcopal Visitations re- 
minds him that the uaited wisdom of this Church deems it proper that such 
Episcopal duties should be discharged once at least in three years. 

Very respectfully, &c. 
~ H. V. D. JOHNS. 


La 


te Bes teal ut wi obec Oi 
eid WO Iiwadit ya Sidtad y 
ssl 180Y to yolmumiu0s auloade 
ai botgaatior bag 2qodeid To pat 
(ehioreiaiad bow dow betes ; 
Thy ileda Sw 10 .bofn Abaiv ida 


wat tolnea #16 ow! ban god 


eT an fio mbar avnd nati 


* _ 8nd Shout ra 


) i eae ragthedy deus le 
aAROL.0.Y YHAE 


(It Dee BK me 04 2991 048 ; 
t lead ant, hovel) 
101 egairsd smebiasd lod 
vgrola esi yd alitiv ‘hobaul 100t 5 
Jane doy Kor oun tol 0G “ab Ty 
‘coiiatieiv laqoseiq it un best 100 
OOF peidt bien ; (lyme outo- cealy a 
. Yael 990% 169 iv ttnalt Stocer 
tn pnoitaties Leyooeiqhl no om 
oma tad wsqorg 1 anneal dod a 
Buia poly aay Sep Se eda; 
oer wap 


i162 odds abt 


a ao loa 


dle tinos bus adaal 


a lait we idl 
gba tod ovate 
Has 4iBsy ov il 108 
fitsot asad Bed 
: Fae joi 16a 
d miobeiw betian an 





ee 


ly 


- now constituted, we are 


ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 





SPEECH 


OF 


HON. JAMES A. STEWART. 


OF MARYLAND, 


Yi IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 12, 1859. 


Mr. Maynarp having offered the following res- 
olution— 

Resolved, That the oldest member of this House, by con- 
secutive service, be, and is hereby, appointed to the chair 
to preside until the election of Speaker— 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland, said: 

Mr. Crerx: It is immaterial whether the prop- 
osition of my friend from Tennessee be adopted 
or not. I have no objection, if that be the sense 
of the House, that we should carry out that reso- 
lution. I propose, however, before the vote is 
taken upon the resolution, to submit briefly some 
suggestions to the House in relation to the state 
of things now existing. 

I confess, Mr. Clerk, that I cannot sce any se- 
rious objection—however necessary it may be to 
have this House organized—to our proceeding 
with this discussion in the same courteous manner 
in whieh it has been so far conducted. . The at- 
tention of the country is more especially directed 
to what may be going on here in the present con- 
dition of the House than it would be if we, pro- 
ceeded more regularly. We have now within 
this Hall some two hundred and thirty-odd mem- 
bers from various States of the Cdifadeaby not 
delegates from a consolidated people, but embas- 
sadors from great sovereignties—and it is proper 
that these high and independent Representatives 
shall take into consideration, before electing a 
Speaker of this House—the third officer of the 

overnment in point of dignity—all the great 
tens connected with the present state of the 

nion. 

‘Under the Constitution of the United States 
there is an express authority given to the House 
of. Representatives to choose its Speaker and its 
other officers; but as to the mode in which the 
election is to be made, the Constitution is silent. 
Therefore we are to be governed by usage, by the 
essential nature of the case, and by such consid- 
erations as shall control the Representatives of 
these States. I concede that when a member gets 
up to express his views or the opinions entertained 
by his section or by his constituents, it should be 
doné in order, with dignity, with firmness. As 
ere on our parole of 
honor. If the intervention of your subordinate 








* 


| officers cannot be called in to preserve order, the 


greater the reason for gentlemen conducting them- 
selves with perfect decorum; and I would hold 
that man who would indulge in personalities, or 
in any ungenerous remarks not called for by the 
occasion, as derelict in the discharge of his high 
duty. Inthe brief remarks which I propose to 
make on this occasion, I shall not depart from the 
piesa me that I have thus laid down, and which 
recognize to be correct. 

The Democratic members of this House, al- 
though in a minority, have proceeded, accord- 
ing to the ancient usages of that party, to have 
an understanding, and to present to their fellow- 
members a gentleman for Speaker whom. they 
consider perfectly competent to discharge the du- 
ties of that position. ‘They have offered a distin- 
guished. gentleman from Virginia, What objec- 
tions can be advanced against him? He has been 
long a member of this House, and is acquainted 
with parliamentary usage. His views and his 
principles are national. He is here, not the rep- 
resentative alone of the old Commonwealth of 
Virginia, but a Representative to take charge, ac- 
cording to the limitations of the Constitution, of 
the interests of every section of this great Con- 
federacy. No objection can be urged against him 
personally. No fair and legitimate objection, I 
apprehend, can be advanced against him so far 
as his political principles are concerned. If he 
be clothed with the responsible trust of presiding 
over the deliberations of this House, he will do 
so with dignity, with firmness, with fairness, in 
my judgment. On the other side we see the Re- 
pabican party, a great organization of the North. 

hey, also, have presented a member of that 
party for Speaker, and have invoked to his sup- 

ort the suffrages of members of this House. 
ow stands that gentleman? Is it not known to 


this House that, in the various ballots that have 


taken place, not a single member from a southern 
State, or from the States of the Pacific, has taken 
on himself the responsibility of voting for that 
gentleman? How can theydo it? So far as the 
tee character.of that gentleman is concerned, 

have nothing to say against him; but, repre- 


‘senting, as I do, a southern constituency—coming 





2 








from a State loyal to this Union—coming from a 
border State—I ask, how can it be expected that 
any gentleman representing a southern constitu- 
ency can give that gentleman his support? He 
stands before us and the country, unfortunately 
for him, as the indorser of this Helper book—that 
notorious publication. How can he be relieved 
from that odium? Notwithstanding the apologies 
made to the House, that indorsement sticks to 
him as the poisoned shirt of Nessus. He cannot 
divest himself of it. How can ey expect us, 
who represent great interests which are recog- 
nized by the Constitution, to sustain a gentleman 
thus implicated and thus affected ? 

What incendiary views does this atrocious pub- 
lication of Helper inculcate? Here isa brief sum- 
mary: 

“1. Thorough organization and independent political 
action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites of the 
South. 

“2. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders; never an- 
other vote to any one who advocates retention and perpet- 
uation of human slavery. 

«<3. No cooperation with pro-slavery politicians ; no fel- 
lowship with them in religion; no affiliation with them in 
society. 

“4, No patronage to pro-slavery merchants; no guest- 
ship in slave-waiting hotels; no fees to pro-slavery law- 
yers ; no employment of pro-slavery pliysicians ; no audi- 
ence to pro-slavery parsous. 

“5. No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders. 

“6. Abruptdiseontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery 
newspapers. 


“7, The greatest possible encouragement to free white 


labor.?? 


I have not read the book, and may never take 
that occasion; and I refer to this brief analysis, 
without commenting upon other sentiments yet 
more insurrectionary and diabolical. Enough 
comment upon such a miserable firebrand; and 
the candidate of the Republicans has indorsed 
and recommended it! 

A gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Hick- 
MAN] introduced, the other day, a resolution em- 
bodying the plurality rule. Now, is not that a 
matter of questionable constitutionality? The 
Constitution of the United States says that the 
House shall choose its Speaker. A majority of a 
quorum can transact business, but can they dele- 
gate authority to a less number than a majority? 
Can a measure be passed or become a law unless 
it meet the approval of a majority? I apprehend 
not. This plurality rule is therefore a matter of 
very questionable authority. For myself, I can 
never consent, under any circumstances, to vote 
for the election of Speaker by the plurality rule. 
No, sir; our Federal Government is aGovernment 
of limited powers, of checks and balances, Within 
those limitations, it may be said, you have the 
House of Representatives and the Senate of the 
United States, codrdinate branches of the legisla- 
tive department. You have the President of the 
United States, who can exercise the veto power; 
which, looking to the character of this Govern- 
ment—a Confederacy of sovereign States—is a 
conservative power. And, sir, if from the con- 
flicting elements of which this House is composed, 
no party can command a majority inits organiza- 
tion, then what is the attitude of the Government? 
What is the position of this nation? Upon whom 
does the responsibility rest? Uponall of us. You 
may say that it is not upon the Republican party 
or upon the Democratic party, if you please. It 
may be upon those gentlemen who cast scattering 














votes; but they have their responsibility also to 
meet. Sir, I say, for myself, that I cannot recog- 
nize the propriety of an organization of this House 
by the adoption of the plurality rule. 

Well, sir, the district that I have the honor to 
represent—a part of the State of Maryland—is a 
district loyal to this Union, under the Constitu- 
tion; but I owe it to this House, to my constitu- 
ents, and to myself, to state here, that there is a 
growing apprehension in my section of the State 
of Maryland, (and I believe, sir, it is a fair index, 
perhaps, of the sentiment of the whole State,) 
that there is danger to the perpetuity of this Union, 
and to the existence of this Confederacy, and to 
our immediate interests. And let me say, sir, 
that this Union is not to be preserved, in my judg- 
ment, by singing peans and hosannas to it. Tt 
can only be perpetuated by maintaining, in their 
full vigor and vitality, all the guarantees of the 
Constitution. Whenever this Government is 
under the contro] of an irresponsible and fanatical 
majority, and the integrity and sovereignty of the 
States are destroyed, you may cleave down this 
Union, and demolish the very existence of the 
Goxernment. The South, therefore, is taking her 
position and occupying the ground that she does— 
not alone for her own sake, but as the friend of the 
whole Union—for the purpose of maintaining 
the constitutional rights of the people of the North, 
as well as those of the South. 

Well, sir, a new kind of doctrine is talked about 
now-a-days of an ‘irrepressible conflict”’ between 
the free and the slave States which did not pre- 
vail in the stormy but patriotic days of the Rev- 
olution, in those heroic times when our forefathers 


went into the struggle with mother Country. Of 


the thirteen States that then existed, twelve were 
slaveholding States, and but one was a non-slayve- 
holding State, and a Constitution was formed in 
the year of our Lord 1789, recognizing the rights 
‘of hose slaveholding States, ; 
How many sovereign States are there now? 
The southern section alone has fifteen. In place 
of the thirteen States that went straight through 
the battles of the Revolution triumphantly with 
three million people, you have now on southern 
soil fifteen great and powerful slayeholding States, 
with a population of some six or eight ea 
and all the elements of a great people. Can it 
be supposed that the Representatives of those 
fifteen slaveholding States are less patriotic, less 
the friends of constitutional Government, than 
were our forefathers? They did not go into that 
great conflict from any new-fangled notion of lib- 
erty or any of those transcendental views which 
now actuate a portion of the people of the North. 
They lived under charters from the mother coun- 
try—all the colonies had such charters—and they 
went into that struggle with the mother country 
in defense of constitutional liberty and their char- 
tered rights. ‘There were cool and sedate men in 
those days who thought that the patriots who em- 
barked in the Revolution were too hasty in their 
action; they said that they had lived under a good 
Government, and that perhaps the mother country 
would change her policy; but George Washing- 
ton, the father of his country, and his compatriots 


thought otherwise, and they deliberately involyed 


themselves in that great revolutionary effort with 


three million people composing the entire popula- . 


tion of the colonies. There were men in those 


3 











days, both North and South, called Tories, who 


thought the movement ill-advised and premature; 
_ but the patriots of those days rushed into the fear- 
' ful contest, and, notwithstanding this internal feel- 


ing and opposition, they gloriously established | 
their independence and laid the foundation of this | 


constitutional confederated Government. Now, 
can it be supposed that in this nineteenth century, 
when, under the beneficent influence of this Gov- 
ernment, the South herself, pari passu with other 
portions of the country, has grown to be a great 
section, with fifteen States and eight million peo- 
ple, they will, when an attempt is made to strike 
down all constitutional guarantees and to set at 
naught the limitations which are prescribed for 
the action of this Government, tamely submit to 
a dominant, fanatical, and irresponsible majority ? 
T apprehend not, sir. Have we not grown to be 


a great people? We have now thirty-three States, | 


not alone upon the Atlantic slope as in the rev- 


olutionary struggle, and with a scattered popula- | 


tion, but you have filled up, by the wise and influ- 
ential action of this Government, the avenues of 
population; the great valley of the Mississippi 
now teems with her millions of people, and we 
have now, upon the golden shores of the Pacific, 
two great States—California and Oregon. 


Now, sir, is it to be supposed that these States | 


will revolve around the General Government as 
does the solar system around the sun as a center? 
Almighty power controls the universe; but Al- 
mighty power does not control human government 
upon the same fixed and unalterable basis. That 
depends in a great measure, under Divine Provi- 
dence, upon the people—the voice of the people, 
which, in this country, we recognize, in the mode 
prescribed by the Constitution, as the voice of 
God, and the people are not those of the days of 
the Revolution; not those who are to come after 
us; but the people now living and moving on the 
face of the earth within the limits of this Con- 
federacy, they are the people—the actual people. 
Wehave lived happily; we have lived and enjoyed 
all the blessings of life comfortably under this 
Union; and it has grown to be powerful among 
the nations of the world under the guidance of 
Democratic principles. Now, forsooth, in this 
refined age of the world, here are gentlemen from 
the North, who are ready to strike down the con- 
stitutional guarantees and limitations of this Goy- 
ernment. An assault, too, is made upon the Su- 
preme Court of the United States. That, perhaps, 
is one of the most unfavorable symptoms of the 
times. Has not the Supreme Court of the United 
States decided that citizens of the South have as 
much right to carry their institutions and various 
descriptions of property into the Territories as 
citizens of the No th have to carry theirs? That 
court has, upon solemn argument and re-argu- 
ment, pronounced the Missouri compromise to be 
unconstitutional, because it violates the rights of 
the people of the South. Yetthe Supreme Court 
is assailed! It shows the feeling at the North. 
They make war not only upon the Supreme Court, 
but upon the constitutional rights of the South, 
when in conflict with their sentimentality. It has 
been said by the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio, [Mr. Corwin,] and the acquiescence in his 
views by the other side would make them appear 
to be those of the Republican party, that they 
were in favor of the fugitive slave law. Am I to 














understand that the Republican party proper is in 
favor of that law? Why, then, these assaults 
upon the Supreme Court and the South? If that 
party has ie jae sea influence at the North, 
as is alleged, why do they not efficiently indicate 
that recognition of the fugitive slave law? Why 
is it that a citizen of the, South puts his life in 
jeopardy when he pursues his runaway slave into 
the North, in order to return him to his service ? 
If our friends of the North wish this Government 
to continue as it has done, then the constitutional 
rights of the South must be respected. It becomes 
the solemn duty of the members of the Republican 
party at once to carry out the provisions of the 
Constitution. There have been Union meetings 
in Boston, and Philadelphia, and elsewhere; but 
they will have no good result unless they influ- 


|ence the action of the northern Representatives 


upon this floor, now or hereafter. They must 
act upon the public sentiment of the North so as 
to induce patriotic results here in the councils of 
the nation. If they do not do that, they amount 
to nothing; then they are a delusion. There is 
not a gentleman here who does not know that, if 
the policy which has prevailed in the North be 
allowed to continue; if infamous publications like 
the Helper book are indorsed, even though by 
inadvertence; if such publications are circulated 
broadcast throughout this Union, for the purpose 
of stirring up strife, insurrection, and civil war, 
the Union must fall, sooner or later, however 
much we may be attached to it; however mindful 
of its glories and its benefits. 

Mr. Clerk, the distinguished Senator from New 
York (Mr. Sewarp] has declared that there is an 
‘“irrepressible conflict” between slaveholding and 
non-slaveholding States. Is that conflict to go on, 
fomented by passion and prejudice and all sorts of 
means? Why did he take that position? In the 
North, a portion of the people, atldast, have been in 
the habit of running men representing the most 
fanatical and extreme views, for the Presidenzy. 
They ran Joun P. Hare and Gerrit Smith, I be- 
lieve, and others. Mr. Sewarp, whois a sharp, 
keen, calculating politician, came to the conclu- 
sion, no doubt, that he would take the wind out 
of the sails of such aspirants, and adopt himself 
the most ultra ground and thus exclude all others, 
for none can bemore extreme. I apprehend, there- 
fore, it was that he promulgated this idea of an 
‘irrepressible conflict;’’ and it is well understood 
that no man in the North can express more ultra 
views. And, sir, 1 am apprehensive that it will 
come to pass, when this Republican party puts 
forth its presidential candidate, that Mr. Sewarp 
will be their standard bearer. If a man, en- 
tertaining such views, be successfully indorsed 
by northern sentiment, then his election to the 
Presidency will give rise to a momentous ques- 
tion as to how far the States of the South and the 
States upon the Pacific, and, indeed, all States 
that go for the Constitution, should take steps to 
protect their interests, if they mean to maintain 
constitutional and well regulated government. I 
saw a backing. down, however, I think, upon the 
other side; and I have, I must confess, an abiding 
confidence in the integrity and perpetuity of the 
Union. ‘That change of tactics was indicated, I 
thought, by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Cor- 
WIn,| in the remarks which he made a few days 
ago. They seem not prepared to indorse Wiz- 


4 

















nriam H. Sewarp or his extreme sentiments. . If, 
however, he should be put upas the candidate of 
the Republican party for the Presidency, and his 
extreme views should be sustained, then, sir, we 
of the South will know where to find the North. 
But I believe, Mr. Clerk, that there is patriotism 
enough in the North to rebuke the revolutionary 
and disorganizing views entertained by sucha man 
as Witutiam H. Sewarp. At the last presiden- 
tial election, there were one million two hundred 
thousand votes polled in favor of the national can- 
didate. Butif the sentiments entertained by the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Corwry] 
are those of the Republican party, upon what 
ground can that party stand? If they acknowl- 
edge the constitutionality of the fugitive slave law, 
if they recognize the décision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States, that the South have 
equal rights with the North in the Territories, 
then upon what basis does that party stand? If 
they are in favor of the constitutional guarantees, 
and do not hold to the extreme views charged upon 
them, why do they come up and attempt to or- 
ganize this House in opposition to the action of the 
Democratic party? ust they net be regarded 
as a stupendous faction? 

I have observed, in a speech made by a distin- 
guished gentleman ata Pan meeting at Boston, 
where there were several thousands assembled, he 
stated that there were thousands of votes regis- 
tered in Massachusetts that had not been polled 
for many years. A small minority, in fact, in 
Massachusetts have been managing the destinies 
of that State, if this be a correct representation. 
Now, in a crisis like this, when the Government 
is shaking from center to circumference; when 
this great Confederacy, with all its advantages, is 
in jeopardy—now, I say, there is an occasion for 
the people of the North to rise in their majesty 
and rebuke the mad spirit of disloyalty. We do 
not ask them to vindicate slavery; if their views 
are adverse to it, so be it. We have examined 
this question in all its bearings. By our social in- 
stitutions slayery exists unalterably in the South. 
We have four million negroes. hat is to be 
done with them? Suppose you free them, how 
do you ayoid the evil? The negro is, by a fixed 
fact, one of the institutions of the country. You 
cannot change his destiny. ‘They were brought 
here by some ruling of divine Providence un- 
doubtedly, and you cannot hold us responsible. 
While this Government was being formed in 1789, 
how came the clause inserted in the Constitution 
that the slave trade should not cease for twenty 
years? Why, Mr. Jefferson, and many men in 
the days of the Revolution, and before the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, I believe, thought this 
institution of slavery might be avoided in process 
of time, and that it would gradually disappear. 
When the delegates met, and the North and some 
of the States South, and against the remonstrances 
of Virginia and Maryland, inserted that provision 
in the Constitution providing for the further in- 
troduction of slaves for twenty years; during 
that period the country was filled with Africans 
by your merchant adventurers of the North, who 
had the control of the navigating interest of the 
country at that time. They are here, and how 
shall we get rid of them? Northern men, I say, 
banded with the extreme men of the South, to 
fasten this institution upon the country, and now 











| we have some three or four million of the African 


race. Is there any man who has examined this 
subject philosophically, and in reference to our 
social system, who has devised a better scheme 
for the protection and preservation of the rights of 
white men, as well as those of the negroes, than 
you find existing inthe slave States? Can any 
of these new fee any of these transcendental 
philosophers, point out a remedy? If you cannot, 
then is it not one of those unalterable institutions, 
the destruction of which would shatter your social 
system North, South, East, and West? If you 
affect this interest of the South, you derange every 
interest of this country. How would it operate 
upon the New England States—the manufacturing 
States. When we raise cotton, we send it either 
to Old England or to New England, Now, is there 
a man upon the other side of the House who is 
not clothed, to some extent, with fabrics raised 
by negro labor? Not one; I presume. What 
will be your condition if you destroy your manu- 
facturing establishments for the want of material? 
What would have been the condition of this coun- 
try from the mouth of the Ohio down to the Ba- 
lize, but for the existence of the institution of 
slavery ?—for the whole of that region is adapted © 
to slave labor and the raising of cottonand sugar. 
It would have been a vast wilderness, for you 
would not have had white population sufficient to 
fill up that region with laborers adapted to the 
growth of cotton and the sugar cane. Nor could 
white laborers haye happily occupied that region 
in the cultivation of such crops. 

Mr, CURTIS. I would ask my friend if there 
are not twice as many laboring white men in the 
South as there are negroes? 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I think not. 

Mr. CURTIS. ,That is about the proportion. 
I think there are about six million whites, and 
about three million negroes. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. There are 
about four million negroes, slaves and free. Now 
let me say to the gentleman from Iowa that there 
is no incompatibility at the South between, the 
labor of the white man and slave labor, each in its 
appropriate and adapted sphere—none whatever. 
The white man is engaged in different labor and 
pursuit, Take the history of this country from 
its origin, trace and examine it in thelight of po- 
litical economy, and answer me, men ofthe North, 
would this country, with all its magnificence, all 
its power and grandeur, hayeoceupied its present 
high position, had it not been for this African 
population? Whence could we haye drawn a suf- 
ficient laboring population? You have already 
pretty much exhausted Ircland; you get but few 
men from that quarter now; you get some from 
Germany,afew from France, and a portion from 
other parts of the continent; and Lask you, would 
you have filled up our country with laborers of 
climatic capacities, but for the African? The 
negro has been profitably employed at the South 
in growing cotton, sugar, and rice; and the white 
man, at the same time, has felt the benefit of this 
munificent system of Government in other and 
more congenial occupations. If my friend from 
Iowa will examine the question fairly, I think he 
will come to the conclusion thatif the African, by 
a wise Providence, I believe, had never been in- 
troduced into this country, we should have been 
at least half a century behind our present posi- 


iE FLOWERS COLLECTION 


5 











tion. Weare much indebted, in my humble judg- 
ment, to that act of an all-wise Providence; for I 
think it must have been the act of a benevolent 
Providence that the African was brought to this 
country; and if the African is removed, and his 
destiny changed, it must be done by the same 
Almighty power. If you undertake, by the action 
of this Government, by combinationsathe North, 
to make war upon the institutions of the South, 
you may destroy not only the South, but this 
great Confederacy. That institution is a part of 
our social system, and cannot be changed without 
fundamental convulsions. Have we not grown 
great, powerful, and magnificent with African 
slavery? I ask the gentleman from lowa if he can 
point to any instance in saered or profane history, 
of any people who have flourished as have the 
good people of this glorious country? ‘This in- 
stitution existed at the formation of the Constitu- 
tion, and it was expressly recognized and formed 
a part of that sacred compact, and it has entered 
into our social and concentrated existence as an 
integral part. 
I hope, and yet believe, that there is enough of 
atriotism and enough of common sense in the 
orth to keep this Government moying along in 
its high career of prosperity. We have consid- 
ered this question, and have, it is too true, an 
apprehension that fanaticism may be able, by 
concentration, to destroy the Confederacy and 
break up this Union. Yet that is still a question. 
Let us see how the next presidential election will 
result. If that election be determined in favor of 
the views of the Republican party, then, I appre- 
hend, the southern States:and the States of the 
Pacific, and all other order-loving States, will 
take counsel together, as’ our forefathers did in 
the revolutionary struggle... They will take no 
hasty action, but will resolve deliberately, se- 
riously, and with a full understanding of their 
condition. If this great fanatical any comes 
into power, takes control of the, Government, 
possession of the White House, and of this Cap- 
itol, and of all the offices of the Government, 
would not this metropolis be overrun with swarms 
of Republican officeholders and office-seekers? 


and may Heaven deliyer us from such keepers 


| 


of our great seal! 

Mr. KILGORE. I ask the gentleman from 
Maryland, whether he is not in favor of the ma- 
jority of the people of this Union ruling, so long 
as they rule with a proper respect for the rights 
of the minority? 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Lamin favor 
of the majority ruling, under the limitations and 
forms prescribed by the Constitution. 

Mr. KILGORE. Certainly. 

| Mr.STEWART, of Maryland. Recollect that 
in our Confederacy, the little State of Delaware 
—I speak of heras asmall but respectable State— 
[laughter,] is on an equality with the State of 
New York, in the Senate of the United States, 
under the Constitution. Iam opposed, unalter- 
ably, to a majority of absolute numbers control- 
ling this Confederacy in any manner, exceptin the 
mode pointed outin the compact of Union. This 
is a Confederacy, not a consolidated empire. The 
State of Delaware, the State of New Jersey, and 
the State of Rhode Island occupy the same proud 
osition, as sister States in this Confederacy, as 
oes the great Empire State of New York, and 











will occupy that relation so long as we can keep 
the Government within constitutional limits. But 
if you start out on this wild ocean of an itrespon- 
sible majority, ‘irrepressible conflict,’’ trenching 
on the rights of the States, cleaving down the lim- 
itations of the Constitution, then we have a des- 
potism. No, sir, the great discovery made by 
our forefathers was, that they had arranged a 
Government of constitutional limitations. There 
is the veto power given to the President—that is 
a conservative power. So, also, the power which 
the minority holds in this House—the position 
now occupied by the Democratic party, if you 
please—is a conservative attribute. Now, when- 
ever the time comes that you men of the North, 
with your allies, set aside the constitutional lim- 
itations, for the purpose of making war upon the 
South and her institutions, you pull down this 
pret temple of constitutional liberty on your own 
heads. Then you yourselves will have no con- 
stitutional Government, but a wild majority, reck- 
lessly and uncontrollably setting aside the rights 
of the States and the people, making war upon 
the Supreme Court, and upon every institution 
that comes in conflict with their grasping domi- 
nation. We thought our forefathers had found 
outa system of checks, limitations, restraints, and 
balances against such an illimitable and irrespons- 
ible majority. 

Mr. KILGORE. Ipresumethe gentleman from 
Maryland has been a Democrat all his life. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Yes. 

Mr. KILGORE. I ask him if he sustained 
General Jackson in his war on the Constitution, 
and in his declaration that the Supreme Court 
would not make decisions to bind his conscience 
in regard to the bank of the United States? 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I conceive 
that the question put by the gentleman from Indi- 
ana has no application to the question which I am 
now discussing. ‘That gentleman decides, and I 
decide, on all constitutional questions coming 
within our jurisdiction for our own representative 
action. General Jackson, as the head of the Dem- 
oeratic party and Government, decided for him- 
self. Inow put this question to the gentleman: 
When the Supreme Court has decided a question 
legally and constitutionally coming before it, does 
he recognize that decision as binding? I should 
like to have ananswer. Now, the Supreme Court 
of the United States. has decided in the Dred Scott 
case that the people of the South can go into the 
common Territories with their property—their ne- 
groes—justas the people of the North can go with 
their horses, their cattle, and their looms; and the 
court judged that the Missouri compromise was 
unconstitutional, because it was in conflict with 
the rights of the South. Willthe gentleman stand 
up to that decision? 

Mr. KILGORE. I have: stated, and I do not 
wish to be misunderstood, that when the Supreme 
Court travels out of its legitimate sphere for the 
purpose of pronouncing a political opinion on 
questions not presented for their consideration, I 
have no regard for it. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Then you 
undertake to decide for yourself. 

Mr. KILGORE. I undertake to decide that the 
Supreme Court, in that case, traveled out of the 
record, for the purpose of pronouncing a political 
opinion not involved in the issue presented tothem. 


6 








Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Who prop- 
erly is to decide that question? 

Mr. KILGORE. Iam, myself. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Exactly; but 
do you decide in a representative capacity, or as 
an individual? If you undertake to decide as an 
individual, and differ with the Supreme Court and 
its authority, then you would be in opposition to 
the constitutional authorities of the Government. 
Such a principle is at war with the orderly acts 
and authority of this Government, because it is 
the Supreme Court that has the right to decide 
these questions when they are appropriately be- 
fore it. If their decisions are not binding on all 
coérdinate departments of the Government, in 
eases which they adjudge, properly before them, 
then we are without’ any acknowledged or com- 
petent judicial authority. I hold that the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States is con- 
trolling and binding. In the Dred Scott case, the 


Supreme Court decided that the people of the | 


South, as well as the people of the North, have 
equal constitutional rights in the Territories; and 
it is not in the power of the Congress of the Uni- 
ted States, or any department of the Government, 
to control these great constitutional rights. 

Mr. KILGORE. Let me again ask the gen- 
tleman whether that question was legitimately be- 
fore the Supreme Court, and whether the onl 
question for their adjudication was not whether 
Dred Scott was a citizen of the United States or 
not, under the provisions of the Constitution ? 
And, if that was the only question, let me ask 
him whether it was not an extra-judicial opinion, 


and one that should have no binding force upon | 


any one? 

Mr. STEWART, of Marylayd. I will say to 
the gentleman from Indiana that I think the ques- 
tion came legitimately before the Supreme Court. 
I think that, in the Dred Scott case, the very ques- 
tion came up as to the power of the Congress of 
the United States to prescribe terms in such cases 
in relation to the occupying of the Territories. I 


look upon it as having been legitimately decided. | 


But, outside of the decision of the Supreme 


Court—which I conceive was only an affirmation | 


of the constitutional rights of the South—I should 
like to know upon what principle the gentlemen 
of a dominant, irresponsible majority can under- 
take to say to the men of the South, after terri- 
tory has been acquired by the common blood and 
the common treasure, that the people of the South 
have not the same equal rights in the Territories 
as the people of the North. [say thatit is against 
common justice, against common decency, and 
againstcommon right, to maintain such a position. 

Now, if the object of gentlemen at the Northis 
to curtail slavery, where will they find the ground 
on which to stand? If they keep up their argan- 
ization, when all these questions in relation to 
the Territories are settled, instead of being a free- 
soil party, they will certainly become an anti- 
slavery party, to all intents and purposes; they 
will make war in fact upon the South, and upon 
her domestic institutions. 

I read the other day the correspondence be- 
tween Governor Wise and the President in rela- 
tion to the recent onslaught on the sovereign 
State of Virginia. Governor Wise thought that, 
under that provision of the Constitution of the 
United States, which guaranties to every State 








rotection from invasion and from internal strife, 
it was the duty of the President of the United 
States, when the Executive of the Commonwealth 
of Virginia gave him notice that he apprehended 
an invasion, to intervene and to protect, if neces- 
sary, by all the powers of the Wrederal Govern- 
ment, the State of Virginia from that a yprehended 
invasion. The President says that he has not the 
power; that there is no act of Congress conferring 
it wpon him; and he maintains that the act of 1793, 
nor the act of 1807, did not clothe him with it. 
Now, if the interpretation of the President be cor- 
rect, and he has no such authority, legislation is 
needed. Are our friends from the different sec- 
tions jn this House and in the other wing of the 
Capitol prepared to clothe the Executive with 
proper authority to protect the various States 
North, South, East, and West, against such in- 
vasions, or combinations, if you choose to call 
them so? Suppose that it is not done, and Goy- 
ernor Wise, in pursuance of what he considers to 
be his duty, finding men violating the laws and 
peace of Virginia, undertakes to pursue them fla- 
grante bello, and they flee into the State of Ohio, 
must there not be a collision between these two 
States, unless there is an exercise of this constitu- 
tional power of the Government? When Com- 
modore Paulding made his demonstration on the 


|| soil of Nicaragua, a Government with which we 


were at peace, and captured Walker there, gen- 
tlemen on the other side said that he did right, 
and some of them undertook to compliment him 
for it. Well, will they carry out that principle? 
Governor Wise. found John Brown and his con- 
federates upon the soil of Virginia, with arms and 
ammunition and all the elements of warfare. Sup- 
pose they had escaped into Ohio, there is nothing 
in the Constitution or in the comity of nations, 
according to your understanding, that would have 
Hoag: him from pursuing them there; but, 
ad he done so, it would have brought on a col- 
lision between those two States. And I appeal 
to gentlemen in this crisis, when the country is. 
excited North, South, East, and West, when you 
find Virginia in a State of military defense, and, 
no doubt, when the Legislature of Maryland 
meets, they will put the military defenses of that 
State also ona proper basis, as will all the southern 
States—I appeal to gentlemen, if not by suitable 
legislation, at least by the power of public opin- 
ion, to prevent these onslaughts upon the South. 
These are the views and considerations, Mr. 
Clerk, entering into our discussions here, that 
should govern and animate us, before the organ- 
ization of the House, if you please, in undertak- 
ing to determine what is the proper action that the 
Representatives of this great Confederacy should 
adopt in our proceedings on this occasion, in the 
organization of this House. I think if we con- 
duct ourselves with decorum, as I have no doubt 
every gentleman will, if these matters are dis- 
cussed with fairness and courtesy, we may come — 
to a proper understanding. We are all of us, I 
apprehend, friends of the Union and of this great 
overnment in its individuality and in its com- 
bined action. Let us all, from every section, — 
take counsel’ together as high-toned patriots. I 
would say to the Representatives on the other 
side, if they are the friends of the Union, why do 
they press their present candidate? If gentlemen 
of the North are, as they claim to be, Union-lov- 





ing and conservative, why do they presentas their 
organ, as their candidate; as the index of their 
sentiments, a gentleman who is obnoxious and 
offensive in his public conduct, if you please, to 

entlemen from the South? The Speaker of this 
Bows occupies an honorable position; he is the 
third officer under the Government; he exercises 
a controlling influence over our deliberations, in 
the appointment of committees, &c. Isay, then, 
to gentlemen on the other side who profess to be 
Union men, since your standard bearer has been 
so unfortunate as to have indorsed this offensive 
publication, why press him upon the House? 
Can youcarry him through? No, sirs; I tell you, 
according to my estimate, that this House never 
will be organized with that Representative as your 
standard bearer. I do not think it can be done. 
We men of the South cannot sanction it. Ispeak, 
of course, of legitimate means, of opposition. I 
say that he cannot be elected. In the various 
votes which have been taken, what adventitious 
force have you been able to obtain? You have 
tried all ee iieess I presume; you have endeav- 
ored to exercise all the influence which you could 
command; and yet you are in a minority, | Per- 
haps you expect to get the plurality rule. Now, 
I believe that any man who would vote for the 
plurality rule, would, if the question were be- 
tween ‘ee and SumrMan, vote for SHERMAN. 
I respond to the sentiment expressed by the dis- 
tinguished gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Reacan.] 
If gentlemen intend to support Suzrman, let them 
do it without the plurality rule. Well, even with 
the aid of the plurality rule, can you elect an ex- 
tremist—a politician who is implicated with this 
Helper book?) Can you expect to force him upon 
this House? I apprehend that it cannot be done. 
The North will wake up, and ask what is the dif- 
ficulty. Here wasan infamous publication, utterly 
atrocious in its character, indorsed and recom- 
mended by the candidate of the Republican party. 
Will the North take and admit his explanation? 
If they do, others will not. I think that that 
pamphlet of Helper will stick to the Republican 

arty for all time, if they persist in supporting 
Mr. Suerman, who has indorsed it. 

Lask gentlemen of the other side to look at the 
elements of which this House is composed. We 
ask the other side to present a man who is true to 
the Union and uncontaminated. If they are not 
extremists, we ask them, in reference to the pro- 
ceedings in the future in this House, in order, 
sir, that we may, progress harmoniously, we re- 
spectfully submit to them whether it would not 
be more proper for them to present as their can- 
didate some gentleman who is not obnoxious to 
the charge of an indorsement of such an atrocious 
pamphlet. 

Mr. STANTON. I submit to the gentleman 
from Maryland whether, if the positions were 
reversed, and the other side of the Fronse had pre- 
sented a candidate who had been denounced from 
this side as utterly unworthy of the House and 
the country, and that side were appealed to to 
abandon him, and thereby confess the condemna- 
tion just, they would do it? 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. We have 
some eighty-eight or ninety members upon this 
side of the House. We have met, and nominated 
Mr. Bococx, a national Democrat. If there is 
any man upon this side of the House, just as 











sound ag Mr. Bococxk, more acceptable to the 
other side of the House, I have no doubt that 
there is nationality enough on this side, magna- 
nimity enough, to gratify them in the election of 
such a gentleman to the Speakership of this 
House. 

Mr. STANTON. 
upon Mr. Bocock. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. If you can 
find any gentleman from the South who has ever 
signed a document so atrocious in its character as 
the Helper pamphlet; if you will show that Mr. 
Bococx has done so, then we will withdraw. him, 
and censure any man who has done so. Thatis 
our attitude. If anything can be shown in the 
public service of Mr. Bococx, in violation of our 
position, where he has ever said anything so of- 
fensive as that which is contained in the Helper 
book, then we should like to hear it, and will 
condemn it—— ; 

Mr. KILGORE. Does the gentleman know 
how their candidate stands in relation to the ele- 
vation of Mr. Srwarp to the Presidency? Would 
he consider that Mr. Sewarp’s election would, of 
itself, be sufficient cause for the dissolution of the 
Union? If the gentleman is not authorized to 
answer, I would like to hear from Mr. Bocock 
himself. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. | Your candi- 
date has refused to respond to interrogatories. 
do not undertake to speak for Mr. Bocock. Ido 
not know exactly what are his views upon those 
subjects, and do not much care. I am satisfied 
that he is a national Democrat, and would make 
us an accomplished officer. But Iam not, ast 
have stated, his organ to answer interrogatories 
for him. That is a matter for himself. If the 
candidate of the Republicans upon the other side 
will submit himself to be catechised, there would 
then have been a propriety in putting interroga- 
tories to the Democratic candidate. 

Mr. KILGORE. Perhaps, if the gentleman 
answers my questions satisfactorily, I may vote 
for his candidate. [Laughter.] 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. IfI-can find 
out what sort of programme will satisfy the gen- 
tleman, I would be glad to gratify him in any 
reasonable wa 

Mr. KILGORE. Hereare the questions I would 
like to have answered: 

1. If Mr. SewArp should be elected President, 
pursuant to the forms of law and the Constitu- 
tion, would the fact of such election be any or 
sufficient reason for opposing the inauguration of 
his Administration, or! for a dissolution of the 
Union of the States? 

2: Are you, or is your candidate for Speaker, 
for or against reopening the African slave trade? 

3. Are you, or is he, in favor of congressional 
legislation for the protection of slavery in the Ter- 
ritories, in case of the refusal of the Territorial 
Legislature to pass such laws? 

4. Are you, or is he, in favor of popular sover- 
eignty to the extent of allowing the people of a 
Territory, during their territorial existence, to 
admit or exclude slavery therefrom? 

If these questions are answered satisfactorily 
by the Democratic candidate, I should not hesitate 
to say that such a candidate is competent for the 

peakership. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Those ques- 


We have made no assault 





8 











tions are not only propounded to my candidate 
but to myself. I am ready to answer for myself. 

Mr. KILGORE. Let me have the gentleman’s 
answer, if I cannot get his candidate’s. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. I may say of 
Mr. Bocock, as Mr. Suerman said of himself, 
that he stands upon his record which is spread 
before the country. If the gentleman will say 
that his candidate will put himself forward to be 
catechised, I have no doubt that Mr. Bococx will 
not shrink from the responsibility of expressing 
whatever opinions he may entertain. 

Mr. KILGORE. If my candidate will not an- 
swer, I will undertake the responsibility of doing 
so for him. 

Mr. STEWART, of Maryland. Better answer 
for himself. It is very evident, considering the 
time which has elapsed since this House met, and 
the discussion which has been going on here, that 
the other side cannot organize this House upon 
the candidate they have now before us. It can- 
not be done. Ido not state this in any spirit of 
defiance. I state it as a probable calculation. 
Bococx gets so many votes, SHERMAN so many; 
and then there are so many scattering. They 
cannot command those scattering votes. I do not, 
and will not, believe until I see it, that they can 
command a majority in favor of the plurality rule 
to allow any to dodge responsibility. We cannot 
do much before the holidays, evenif we organize. 
I was here in 1855, when the contest took place 
on the election for the Speaker. That contest 

‘lasted more than seven weeks. Suppose this 

House never organizes, where is the responsibility? 
You told the people that you were coming up here 
to electa Speaker, and organize this House. You 
have not done that, sir, nor, in my judgment, can 
you with Mr. SuHerman as your candidate, or 
indeed with anybody in the same category. 

Suppose the House does not organize, who is 
to be held responsible? You will say that the 
Administration party is in power, and that with- 
out an organization of this House they cannot 
carry on this Government. Very well. Here 
are sovereign States, and you cannot thus bring 
this Government to an end. When I speak of 
the Government, I speak of her in all her essence 
and modifications—of State governments and a 
Federal Government—of a government of pri- 
mary and of delegated powers. You cannot, by 
non-organization on the part of this House, break 
up this Government, although it is revolutionary ; 
and the people will so understand it. Wait until 
you hear what your sovereigns say. Let our can- 
didates undergo the ordeal, and let the great body 
of the people of the States in this Confederacy 
answer upon whom the responsibility rests. When 
the people of the North understand that the Re- 
publican party have presented a candidate with 








‘ dation. [ 


such a record; when they see his indorsement of 
that infamous publication; you will comprehend 
how far that law-loving people, par. excellence, 
will sustain you in pressing such a candidate’ 
under all the circumstances. Iam content. I rep- 
resent a constituency loyal to this Union; but to’ 
the Union under the Constitution. “We do not go 
for your irresponsible majorities; we do not go 
for any of your new-fauiled and transcendental 
notions; we take the Government as it was founded 
by our revolutionary forefathers, and. when you 
strike down the institution of slavery, you ‘will 
have cloven down “alike all constitutional guaran- 
tees. What but revolution can you expect from 
the South under such cireumstances? Do you 
suppose this Government is to exist in perpetuity 
unless you maintain the Constitution in all its 
vigor and integrity? Look at the history, sacred 


and profane, of all eer tblican Govern-) 


ments. Where is Babylon; where is Nineveh: 
where are Sodom and Gomorrah? Gone, gone. 
The profoundest antiquarian cannot tell exactly 
where they stood. And why have they been blot- 


ted out from the roll of flourishing cities? Was» 


it not because they were reckless of all moral ob- 
ligations and legal restraints imposed upon them? 
And shall we escape the same awful doom if we 
violate the principles, the spirit of the constitu- 
tional limitations imposed upon us by the great 
compact formed by our forefathers ? hat new 
discovery did our forefathers make which will 
enable us to'achieve more success or greater per- 
petuity than did those ancient republics, if we are 
reckless of constitutional restraints? 

I wish it, therefore, understood that I go for the 
Union under the Constitution, and without the 
Constitution there can be no Union; and’ that, in 
the election of Speaker of this House, I want its 
candidate to be a national man, a statesman who 
will recognize all sections, North, South, East, 
and West. ; i 

I shall stand up here, to the best of my ability. 
in defense of the rights of my constituents, ac- 
cording to the views I entertain, and shall oppose 
the plurality rule, and all attempts made to organ- 


| ize this House by putting in power, with his ob- 


noxious implications, the candidate of a seetional 
party, which makes war upon the settled and con- 


servative institutions of the country, Let this de- — 


bate go on or stop now, I shall never consent to 
the plurality rule in order to organize this House: 
and I trust in God that this House and great Con- 
federacy may be spared the calamity of witness- 
ing the inauguration of schemes here under such 
influences and such a programme of ‘sectional 
policy as now startles the country, and will, if not 
checked, cause every column in our great temple 
of constitutional liberty to totter to its very foun- 
we ; it 











Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 








LETTER Z © ' 
FROM 
THE HON. JAMES ALFRED PEARCE, 
4 UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND, ON 
THE POLITICS OF THE DAY. 








LETTER oy 
FROM 
THE HON. THOMAS G. PRATE, 
UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND, 
pp 9! TO THE WHIGS OF THAT STATE. 








P SPEECH 


OF THE 


HON. ISAAC 4D. JONES, 


jivered in response to the call of a Democratic Procession at Princess Anne, Somerset county, Md. , 
f on the evening of Tuesday, July 15, 1856. 


| 
it 








SPEECH 


OF THE 


HON. JOHN W. CRISFIELD, 


ivered at Princess Anne, Somerset county, Md., on Tuesday evening, July 15, 1856, responding te 
the call of a Democratic Procession. 

f 

| ; 





WASHINGTON CITY, D. om 
1856. 


LETTER OF HON. JAMES A. PEARCE. 


WASHINGTON, JULY 81, 1856. 


My Dear Sir: You ask what part I mean 
to take in the coming Presidential election, and 
what J think should be done by old Whigs who 
have never been attached to any other party, 
and who do not desire to enter into new politi- 
cal connexions. 

Iam well aware of the embarrassments to 
such persons which attend a choice among the 
candidates for the Presidency now before the 
country. In my own case this embarrassment 
is sensibly felt. My inclinations point one way, 
a sense of the duty arising from the present 
dangerous condition of domestic politics leads 
me another way. 

My past relations, political and personal, with 
Mr. Fillmore, the confidence I have always re- 
posed in his integrity and ability, the wisdom 
of his Administration, and the conviction I en-; 
tertain that he is a just national man and free 
from sectional prejudice, would induce me to 
prefer him to hiscompetitors. Neither doI ob- 
ject to the sentiment of American nationality, 
properly limited and restrained. Indeed I think 
that our present system has made American 
citizenship too cheap. But I did not approve 
the mysterious system under which the Ameri- 
can party, of which he is now the representa- 
tive, was organized ; the oaths administered to 
members on initiatiou, and the discipline of the 
order, by which secrecy and obedience was se- 
cured. How far all this has been dispensed| 
with I do not know. The original plan of their 
organization I could not but condemn, us I do 
the adoption of any principle which founds a 
a rule of political exclusion upon a diversity of 
religious faith. However modified in these re- 
spects their plan may now be, it is not necessary 
for me to inquire. 





party came into jit, as I think with purposesjof the “slave power 
very different from those entertained by the rest.| Fillmore is too nationa 


Buchanan and Mr. Fremont. 
friends indeed claim a great reaction in hi 
but I have taken much pains to ascertai 
his strength is in the free states, and s 
have not been able to satisfy myself that 
carry a single one of them. His wise a 
triotic conduct while President, which 

mended him so strongly to the Whigs 
South, is regarded by the majority at the 
as a fatal objection to him. 
tion and conciliation they desire ; they tl 


sadest calamity that has ever befel our 


|The comparatively small portion of the 


can party which remained after this tra 
the anti-slavery men, and which has nor 
Mr. Fillmore, is without power to ele 
even with the assistance of Southern W 


|National Northern Whigs. These, 


great their personal respect for and cor 
in Mr, Fillmore, are under no party obli 
now to give him their support, seeing 
has become a member and accepted thi 
nation of a party which repudiates the 7 
and, while they would be willing in a 
with their old opponents to stand by 
political opinions to the last, they find 
reason in the present condition of parties 
politicel anarchy which prevails, and 
fear of a sectional and anti-slavery tr 
leading to ulterior consequences of the 
sort, to consider whether it is not their « 
sacrifice all personal feeling and party p1 
for the sake of the Union, and to susti 
nominations of the Democrats as the only 
of defeating the schemes of the mad a; 
who rule the Republican party. 

The contest it seems to me, lies betwe 
Mr. Fil 


It is not n 


one of their leaders said, that the time fo 
promise has passed. ‘They want, in the 


dent, an instrument to punish the So 
The Northern wing of the|what they fancy or pretend to be the ager 


2 ry 


ig 


upon the North 
for this purpose, 


They adopted it as a cloak toschemes which all]/must indeed be eredulous or sauguine— 
of us in Maryland condemn ‘and detest... The/extreme who supposes that the politicia: 
necessary affiliations of that wing of the party|have misguided and inflamed the Northe 


were with the anti-slavery men; and according-|jority will abandon their designs, and re: 





ly we find the mask now thrown off by the 
most of them, and see the development of their 
plans in such a measure as the personal lib- 
erty bill of Massachusetts, which nullifies a law 
of Congress, violates the constitutional guaran- 
tee for the recovery of fugitive slaves, and cre- 
ates the fiercest and most dangerous discord be- 
tween the North gndthe South. Their mem- 
bers of Congress have for the most part been 
consolidated with the pernicious party miscalled 





Presidential Convention have deserted ‘to that 


motly alliance, whose triumph would be thejern men who join in the support of M 


the spoils for which they hunger and thij) 
at the moment when, for the first time, tl| 
confident of the success of the one and 
joymert of the other. 
lies in the Whig States of the South. . 
the Southern States should give him thei} 
he would fail in the election without suc’ 
tance from the free Sta‘ 
to look. for. 
Buchanan and Mr. Fremont, and what Mé 
Republican, and many of their delegates to their| Whig believing as I do can hesitate? 











Mr. Fillmore’s s/ 


es as it would | 
The choice, then, is betwé 


I am not so unjust as to charge all the 


8 


_ 


ont with being abolitionists. There are men 
Bone them whom I hold in much respect, 
while deploring the error of judgment into 
hich they haye fallen; but the most active 
ind influential of their leaders are men who, 
rom perverted judgment or inflamed passion, or, 
vhat is worse, from deliberate calculation, have 
ermined to build upa sectional party, wreck- 
s of its peril to the Union, once so justly 
valued, but now estimated far less at the North 
han at the South. Mr. Greeley is at this mo- 
hent more potential, with his party than any 
ther of its members. He has the benefit of 
Vir. Giddings, co-operation. Governor Chase, 
fr, Seward, and Mr. Wilson are active and in- 
Iuential leaders. Their presses teem with the 
ercest. abuse of Southern men and Southern! 
pstitutions, with the grossest perversions of the’ 
ruth, wickedly made to inflame the Northern 
hind, Their orators denounce us equally, and 
me do not hesitate to say that they intend or 
lesire not only to restore Kansas to the opera- 
ion. of the Missouri restriction, but to repeal 
e fugitive slave bill, to abolish slavery in the 
riet of Columbia, to interdict the inter- 
fate slave trade, so as to prevent the owner 
‘om migrating with his domestics from one 
ave State.to another, to prevent forever here- 
ter the admission of-any new State which 
lerates dotiiestic servilude, and to hem in and 
Snfiue slavery within its present’ limits; thus 
Mntinually increasing the political power of 
heir section, until we shall be too weak to resist 
heir future efforts to impair the value of our 
euliar property, and, finally to destroy it— 
Ve do not. indeed find all, these objects laid 
dwn in the platform of their party ; and there 
‘re men associated with them whose designs by 























and hatred inseperable from party “ character- 

ized by geographical discriminations.” It was 
against this that the Father of his Country 
warned us in his farewell address—the last legacy 
of the spotless patriot to the country he had 
loved and served so well. 

Some years ago (in 1830,) when the danger 

of this sectional organization was less than it is 

now, Mr, Clay gaye us his advice in the follow- 

ing words : 

_ “ Abolitionism should no longer be regarded as an 

imaginary danger. The Abolitionists, let me sup- 

pose, succeed in their present aim of uniting the in- 

habitants of the free States as one man against the in- 

habitants of the slave States. Union on the one side 
will beget union on the other, and this process of re- 

ciprocal consolidation will be attended with all the 
violent prejudices, embittered passions, and implaca- 
ble animosities which ever degraded or deformed hu- 
man natures Virtual dissolution of the Union will 
have taken place, whilst the forms of its existence 
remain. * * * One section will stand in menac- 
ing and hostile array against the other. The collision 
of opinion will soon be followed by the clash of arms. 

1 will not attempt to describe scenes which now hap- 
pily lie concealed from our view.  Abolitionists 
themselves would shrink back in dismay and horror 
at the contemplation of desolated fields, conflagrated 
cities, murdered inhabitants, and the overthrow of 
the fairest fabric of human government that ever 
rose to animate the hopes of civilized man.” 


It will be said perhaps that this is mere de- 
clamation ; that Mr. Clay’s fervid spirit gave too 
warm a coloring to the picture ; but we need 
only remark the passionate violence which char- 
acterizes men who have lately yielded to this 
sectional phrensy to satisfy ourselves what is 
the temper natural tosuch an organization, At 
the Convention in Philadelphia, held by those 
who’ nominated Mr. Fremont, a conspicuous 
and distinguished gentleman heretofore consider- 





Yo meaus extend so far, and who, if they knew 
lie probable consequences of their success, 
Id recoil from the evil associations into which 
But, then, more moderate 










Dngress and of the amateur orators of the 
ul ty, all clearly evince a determination to unite 
ll the people of the free States, if possible, in 
free. and relentless hostility to those of the 
‘uth, It is in the strife of sections in which 
7 hope to succeed ; and in. what would their 
ecess result? Not in forming a more perfect 
ion, not in establishing justice or insuring do- 
estic tranquility, all of which are among the 
Nelared. objects of, that Constitution . which 










ed moderate and conservative, made a speech, 
in which, amidst cheers and cries of “ good,” he 
spoke as follows : 


“They (meaning those who appointed the mem- 
bers of the Convention,) ask us to ive them a 
nomination, which, when put fairly before the peo- 
ple, will unite’ public sentiment, and, through the 
the ballot-box, will restrain and repel this pro-slave- 
ry extension and this aggression of the slaveocracy. 
What else are they doing? Thoy tell you they are 
willing to abide by the ballot box and willing to 
make that the last appeal. If we fail there, what 
then? We will drive it back sword in hand, and’ so 
help me God, I’m with them,’’ To 

It is true that the author of these remarks has 
since publicly avowed that he alone is responsi- 
ble for this rhapsody. But it cannot be doubted 
that the feeling which prompted him was the 
same which animated the preacher who proposed 
to supply the brethren in Kansas with bread and 
owder too, and which has stimulated other 
preachers and their congregations to subscribe 








J/ashington and the other Fathers of the Re- 
Viblic gave to us; but in the jealousies, discord, 















Sharpe’s rifles as the most efficacious instrument 


4 


in the adjustment of the controversies in that Some of the leaders 20 further still, and « 
Territory, which all good men deplore, however|sider slavery as a wrong so transcendant tha’ 


they may differ as to the causes of the unhappy 
anarchy which prevails there. For myself I ac- 
knowledge my duty to redress, so far as' I can, 
all the real grievances complained of in that re- 
gion; and I have supposed that the bill recently 
passed by the Senate was calculated to remedy 
them, because it proposes to enact that no law 
shall be made or have force or effect in said Ter- 
ritory which shall require a test oath, or oath to 
support any act of Congress or other legislative 
act, as a qualification for any civil office or pub- 
lic trust, or for any employment or profession, 
or to serve as a juror or vote at an election, or 
which shall impose any tax upon or condition 
to the exercise of the right of suffrage by any 
qualified voter, or which shall restrain or pro- 
hibit the free discussion of any law or subject of 
legislation in the said Territory, or the free ex- 
pression of opinion thereon by the people of said 
Territory ; and secures, as far as law can secure, 
the operation of the public will in the formation 
‘of a State government. That this bill was sin- 
cerely meant to effect its avowed purpose I am 
quite confident; and I believe that there are 
conservative men at the North, who do not yield 
to prejudice or passion, who will credit this as- 
sertion. Unfortunately they are not the major- 
ity... At all events, in the most of the free States 
the masses of the Republican party are led by 
men who do not mean to be satisfied with any 
legislation which is not to result in placing the 
Government under their control; by men who 
say that the framers of the Constitution “‘ made 
a compromise that cannot be mentioned without 
shame ;” who say of Mr. Fillmore, in allusion to 
his signing the fugitive slave bill, “better, far 
had he never been born—better for his memory, 
and for the name of his children, had he never 
been President ;” who declare that bill to be 
“one of the immortal’ catalogues of national 
crimes,” and that he who signed it thereby 
“sunk into the depths of infamy ;” who pro- 
nounce the fugitive slave to be, “one of the he- 
roes of the age,” and the master who demands 
him a “ vile slaye-hunter,” whom all men should 
look upon with contempt, indignation, and ab- 
horrence; men who do not regard the Constitu- 
tion, and the laws made in pursuance of it, as 
the supreme law of the land; who disregard the 
decisions of that high tribunal whose office it is 
to decide the constitutional questions; who 
claim. to set up their individual opinions against 
the official ones of the judicial authorities, and 
refer their obligations, not to the instrument 
which they have sworn to support, which is at 
once the bond and the principle of our Union, 
_ but to some “higher law,” whose foundationsare 
to be found in their own fanatical imaginations. 


must not only be limited to its present boun 
but must be abolished altogether. We see | 
effects of this in the increasing restiveness ot 
part of our population, in the often repeated 
capes of our servants from the mildes: form 
servitude ever known, and in the ready acce 
ance of the recommendation not to hesitate 
theft, robbery, and murder, if need be, to acec 
plish their flight. From this condition of thi 
we can expect no relief if the anti-slavery pa 
succeed in the election of Mr. Fremont. To. 
feat their nomination seems to me to be our f 
duty. and greatest interest, and therefore I 

ready to adopt that eandidate who appears rm 
likely to accomplish this purpose. I add 
showing the extreme designs of the anti-slay 
zealots the following remarks, reported as h 
ing been made lately by Mr. Wendell Phill! 
Speaking of the Republican party, he says; 

‘Tt is the first sectional party ever organize( 
this country. ‘It does not know its own face. 
calls itself national; but itis not national ; it is) 
tional. It is the North arrayed against the Sor 
Henry Wilson said to me, ‘We must get ey 
Northern State in order to elect Fremont!’ It. 
a distinct recognition of the fact that the Republi 
party is a_ party of the North pledged against | 
South. Theodore Parker wanted to know ¢ 
where disunion would begin? | I will tell him— 
where that party decides; that is, a Northern pi 
against the Southern. I do not call it an a 
slavery party ; it has not risen to that yet. It! 
distinct recognition was Banks’ election.”” 

I have no idea that this is to be consideret| 
showing the general purpose. of the Republi 
party, but I am well satisfied that such opin 
are growing in the North, wnhder the ‘cons 
teachings of such apostles as Mr. Phillips, , 
this speech shows the tendency of present eve 

I have been politically opposed to the De 
oratic party for so many yéars that I cay 
without reluctance contemplate the necessit 
supporting their nominee, Yet it must be 
mitted that he is a man of abilities and'li 
public experience ; that he has been just ti 
South, though not assuming to be a Nortl 
man with Southern principles ; that his inel 
tions are generally conservative; that he 1 



















by the House of Representatives in 18 






nanced and promulgated the charge of b 
and corruption against Mr. Clay in the ele 


shuuld denounce him for this as readily an 


5 » 


verely as any one if, I thought this allegation 
st. But I remember that this charge against 
. Clay was made without any direct testimo- 


and bravely he had borne it. 
before his father ! and now he was proud to say that 
there lived not the man who would whisper it. 
Mr. Buchanan was free from all connexion with the 


> 


Thank God, it died 
But 


until 1827, when the Carter Beverly letter|matter. 


] to Mr. Buchanan’s being named as.a witness ; 
id that he then promptly denied the statement 
ch he was relied on to prove, and, at the 
of loosing Gen. Jackson’s favor and that of 
$ party, exonerated Mr. Clay. From the Jet- 
which he then published I extract the fol- 
ying passage : 


eT owe it to my own character to make another 
servation. Had I ever known or even suspected 
t Gen. Jackson belieyed I had been sent to him 
-Mr. Clay or his friends, I should have immediate- 
corrected his erroneous impression, and thus pre- 
nted the necessity for this most unpleasant. ex- 
ination. When the editor of the United States 
legraph, on the 12th of October last, asked me by 
iter for information upon this subject, I promptly 
rmed him by the returning iHail: on the 19th of 
ht month, that Lhad no authority from Mr. Clay or 



















Telation to their votes, nor did I ever make any 
h propositions; and that I trusted I would be as 
‘apable of becoming a messenger upon such an oc- 


ive such a message. 
ake this statement in order to remove any mis- 
heeption which may have been occasioned by the 
blication in the Telegraph of my letter to the 
itor, dated the 11th ultimo.” 


Again, in 1828, in a speech delivered in the 
yuse of Representatives, Mr. Buchanan de- 
red that he had no knowledge of the bargain 
1 corruption charged, on, Mr., Clay. These 
avowals may be* considered as merely cold 
fice to the great and incorruptible Whig 
der, but surely they contradict most flatly ‘the 
i ‘ce of being his “traducer and defamer.” 
ther proof were needed it may be found in 
following remarks recently made in Ken- 
iky by Mr. Jas. B. Clay, his son : 



















i friends, the companions and constituents of 
{ifather, to rally around that banner which he had 
Pint his life in upholding—the banner of the Union. 
was ready to follow the Whig standard as the 
liglass followed the heart of Bruce—as long as it 


red. Butithat flag was no longer to be seen on 


th there was the resurrection. But at present 
e was no Whig organization, and the only party 
the Union was that of which Buchanan and 
ickinridge were the candidates. 

})Mr. Clay referred to the attempt to implicate 
‘Buchanan in the charge of bargain and corrup- 
i}, On that subject he proposed to take the testi- 


fimony bearing on the same point:: In feeling 
eloquent terms he referred to the heavy weight 
lat charge against his father, and how gallantly 
iy 0 





If 


i) Mr. Clay then proceeded ‘to urge upon his old|tering: 





of his own father, and he read from Mr. Clay’s|tion’ rit 2 ) I 
% to show that Mr. Buchanan had conducted|acceptance of the nomination tendered to him by his 
self in that affair as aman of truth and honor. |Party, namely, a desire so to discharge the duties of 
should believe what his father said before others. |the high office to which he aspires as _ ‘to allay do- 
ides the evidence he had read, there was other |mestic strife, preserve peace and friendship with for- 


ih Clay concluded ‘with an eloquent appeal to 


his fellow’ citizens, especiall Old-Line Whigs, to give 
their cordial support to the Union ticket—to Bu- 
chanan and Breckinridge.” 


The next great object is that Mr. Buchanan 
would beunsafe in his management of foreign 
affairs. I readily admit that I do not like the 
Ostend paper, and I do not approve certain res- 
olutions adopted by the Cincinnati Convention, 
notwithstanding the unanimous opposition of the 
Virginia and Maryland delegates, and I believe 
of others; and if he should adopt the aggressive 
policy supposed to be prescribed by that paper 
and the resolutions, I should be as ready and as 
earnest in my opposition to him as any one. 
But he is a man of known caution, which, with 
his intelligent comprehension of the true in- 


s friends to propose any terms to General Jackson|terests of the United States, and the responsi- 


bility of the Presidential office, which he could 
not but recognise, would forbid his urging the 


sion as it was known Gen. Jackson would be to/country upon a course of aggression inconsistent 
Ihave deemed it necessary) with the spirit of our Government, faithless to 


treaties, violative of the rights of other nations, 
and destructive of our own peace, honor, and 
concord, J know that many of theleading men 
of his own party are sound and reliable in this 
respect ; and I believe that there conservative in- 
fluence would harmonize'with his own disposi- 
tion. I am the more assured of this because I 
observe that in his letter of acceptance there is 
no recognition of the resolutions, (which were 
not considered by the Convention as forming a 
part of the platform,) but, on the contrary, a 
prudent and conservative tone, which met with 
‘the approbation of even the judicious and ex-: 
perienced Hditors of the National Intelligencer— 
themselves par excellence, the foes of all fillibus- 
In an_ additional article noticing Mr. 
Buchanan’s letter of acceptance, they said : 


‘““We may say, however, that Mr. Buchanan’s 
official letter of acceptance, while not expressly re- 
pudiating the extreme and exceptionable doctrines 
foisted into the Democratic confessions of faith by 


Vibattle-ficld. It might yet be unfurled. Afterjthe Cincinnati Convention, does not, by its spirit 


and tenor, incline us to hope that he means if 
elected, so to construe those doctrines as to disarm 
them of their mischievous significance and evil ten- 
dency. Indeed we can give no other meaning than 
this to Mr. Buchanvn’s declaration when he says 
that he accepts the ‘resolutions constituting the 


‘platform of the principles erected by the Coaven- 


in the same spirit as that which prompts his 


eign nations, and 
Republic,” ”” 


At present the prospects is that the conserva- 


promote the best interests of the 


6 


tive Whig vote will be so divided as to defeat a: 
popular election and throw the decision upon} 
the House of Representatives—at all times an 
event to be deprecated, but at this period pecu- 
liarly pernicious and dangerous, and threaten- 
ing the rudest shock to-our'system. | What the 
result will be I will not ventureto predict, but 
I will say that I do not see the least probability 
of Mr. Fillmore’s election by the House of Rep- 
resentatives. I think, therefore, it would be the 
part of wisdom and patriotism in the Whigs (by 


which I mean those who have affiliated with no) 


other party) to throw their votes for Mr, Buch- 
anan as the strongest of the candidates opposed 
to the Northern sectional party. This they may) 
do without renouncing their old political faithy 
without stain of honor or suspicion of apostacy. 
The motive being, the integrity of the Union, the 
defeat of a party which is founded on geograph- 
ical discriminations and bound together by dan- 
gerous sectional schemes, the act will be vindi- 
eated by disinterested, patriotism. 

For my part, I shall not abjure my political 
creed, and, having in view but the one object 
which I have stated, I shall hold myself ready 
to take any other course which may be neces- 
sary to effect that object. Should the hopes of: 
Mr. Fillmore’s friends be realized ; should it ap- 
pear that he is more likely to carry the great 
body of the patriotic, but quiet people, who 
generally come to the rescue in times of public 
peril; that he is, in short, the best able to sub- 





due this storm of sectional passion and preju-) 


dice, I shall rejoice to see him again filling the 
chair of State. But I will not affect an unal- 
loyed gratification ; for I cannot forget that he 
is the candidate of a party which has proscribed 
Whigs who were not members of “ the order”— 
of a party) which boasted, that it had risen on 
the ruins of the Whig and Democratic parties, 
and which) has pronounced ‘both of them. cor- 
rupt. 
Whateres the result, I shall be content if the 
dangerous excitement which threatens our peace 
and union can be calmed.down, so that the ex- 
treme opinions which have their roots in preju- 
dice and passion may wither away. Then a 
liberal forbearance and kindly toleration of dif- 
ferent sentiments. may resume their influence. 
If this cannot be done, if the South and the 
North are to regard one another as enemies, then 
sooner or later our “house, divided against it- 
self,” must fall. Then we shall have to say, with 
Pantheus— (3 
Venit summa dies et ineluctabile tempus 
Dardanice. 
But ours will be a sadder fate than, that of 
Priam’s empire; for it was not the Dardanian 
people by whom ‘the inevitable doom of Troy 
was fixed. A foreign foe beat down her lofty 


walls and destroyed the bigh renown of T 
cer’s race ; but we shal] fall by our own stici 
hands; we will kindle the flames which sha 
destroy the edifice of our constitutional Union 
ourselyes will break the bonds of harmonious tr 
terest and fraternal concord which have held y 
together as one people. May Heaven inspire t 
with wisdom to avert so sad a catastrophe | 
Very truly, my dear sir, your friend, 
JAS. ALFRED PEARCE. 
. J. R. FRANKLIN, ; 


To the Hon ; 
: ‘Snow Hill, Maryland,’ ‘ 





P. S.,l add a letter of Mr, Clay to Rev. Wa 
ter Colton, which shows his opinion in 18438 
the effect of the abolition movements of thi 
day : ' i 

ASHLAND Sept. 2, 1843. 

My Dear Six: Allow me tosuggest a subject fi 
one of your tracts, which, treated in your popu 
and condensed way, I think would he attended wil 
great and good effect, I mean abolition. 

It.ig manifest that the ultras of that party are e 
‘tremely mischievous, and are hurrying on the cou: 
itry to fearful consequences. They are not to | 
‘conciliated by the Whigs. Engrossed Nhs ne 
idia, they care for, nolhing: § se, They would | 
the administration of the Government precipita 
the nation into absolute ruin before they would ler 
a helping hand to arrest its career. They tre 
worst and denounce moat those who treat them bes 
who so far agree with them as to admit, Havery) 
be an evil. Witness their conduct. towards 
Briggs and Mr. Adams in Massachusetts, and t 
wards me. prihedong | 

I will give you an outline of the manner in whir 
I would handle it: Show the origin of slavery 
trace its introduction to the British Governmer 
Show how it is disposed of by the Federal Constit 
tion; that it is left exclusively to the States, exce 
in regard to fugitives, direct taxes, and represent 
tion. Show that the agitation of the question 
the free, States will first destroy all harmony, at 
finally lead to. disunion, perpetual war, the extin 
tion of the African race, ultimate military despotist 

But the great aim and object of your tract shou 
be to arouse the laboring classes in the free Stat 
‘against abolition. | Depict the consequences to the 
of immediate abolition, |. The slaves, being fre 
would be dispersed throughout the Union; thi 
would enter into competition with the free laborer 
with the American, the Irish, the German—redu 
his wages, be confounded with him, and affect} 
moral and social standing. And; as the ultras; 
both for abolition, and amalgamation, show «i 
their object is to unite in marriage the, laborij 
white man and the laboring black woman; tor 
duce the white laboring man to the despised and 
graded condition of the blackman, 

I would show their, opposition to colonizatig) 
show its. humane, religious, andjpatriotic aims; th 
they are to separate those whoni God) has separate! 
Why do the abolitionists oppose colonization ? || 
keep and amalgamete together the, two races, 
violation of God’s will, and to keep the blacks 
that they may interfere with, degrade, ana 
the laborivg/whites. Show that the British 
ernment is, co-operating with the abolitionis 
}the purpose of dissolving the Union, &c, You 


i 


















ike a powerful article that will be felt in every ex- 
mity of the Union. Iam perfetly satisfied it will 
‘great good. Let me hear from you on this sub- 
t if HENRY CLAY. 
wie — oO ; 
\ETTER OF HON. THOS. G. PRATT. | 





{fn response to the communications received 
m many of my brother Whigs, I deem it my 
vilege, in this manner, to counsel with all in 
ition to the course which patriotism and duty 
uld seem to indicate as 
itical crisis. 
No lover of his country whose judgment is 
biassed by party zeal and uncontrolled by 
tthern or Southern fanaticism can fail to see 
pending danger to the Union. 
(‘he first duty of every man who loves his 
ntry and her institutions is to provide for 
safety. The life of the nation is in dan- 
' It must be saved ; then, and not till then, 
1 it be permissible to us to discuss our differ- 
es of opinion upon minor subjects. 
| say that the life of the Union is in danger, 
ause, for the first time in our history, a party 
) been formed composed exclusively of citizens 
ine section of the country, bound together by 
single bond of an alliance for offensive war- 
against the other section. That the success 
puch a party would imperil the Union has 
a recently demonstrated by an address of 
| Fillmore, and will, it is snbmitted, be ap- 
mt to all who will bestow a moment’s con- 

















proper in the present 


| 


the South would be more effectually protected 
by a separation of the slave from the non-slave- 
holding States, and therefore rather promote 
than interpose to prevent. a result so calamitous. 
We have hitherto disregarded the danger which 
such a state of feeling and such a course of ac- 
tion would indicate as mpst imminent, because 
we have assumed that such sentiments and ac- 
tion could only be attributed to a small minority 
of our Northern brethern. But now, when thig 
sectional exasperation has been made available 
for the inauguration of a party calling itself 
Republican, under whose banner, for the first 
time in the history of the country, this sectional 
opposition to Southern rights and interests have 
united.in nominating, with alleged probabilities 
of success, a purely sectional ticket for the 
Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United 
States, we can no longer shut our eyes to the 
reality of the threatening danger; we cannot 
but feel that the success of such a party would 
be the death knell of the Union. ‘The unpatri- 
otic purposes of this sectional party are but too 
manifest. Many of its supporters avow their 
object and purpose to be disunion, and have 
even gone so far in the madness of their fanati- 
cism as to desecrate the flag of our country by 
obliterating from its constellation the fifteen stars 
which represent the slaveholding States, and dis- 
playing as their party banner that flag with but 
sixteen of its stars remaining, to represent the 
sixteen non-slaveholding States. It is manifest 








ration upon the existing posture of political,that those who disavow the object are not igno- 
rs. rant of the inevitable result, 






ot less than two thousand million of dollars,/honor to address, need no proof to convince them 
m equal to the value of all the other property|that calamitous consequences would flow from 


ae United States, as shown: by the last cen- 
This property is not only recognised, but 
ar guarantied by the Constitution as to im- 
upon the Federal Government the duty of 
bring to his owner the slave who may escape 
} another State or Territory of the United 
es. for years past this constitutional obli- 










the success of this sectional party. They each 
and all know that the election of Mr. Fremont, 
and the administration of the Government by 
him upon the principles of Ais party, would 
necessarily occasion a dissolution of the Federal 
Union, to which they have been taught to look 
as the source of national strength and of indi- 
vidual prosperity and happiness. 


pn has been not only repudiated by some of 
mon-slaveholding States, but political par- 
have been organized in all with the avowed 
t of liberating the slaves, and thus not only 
iving the South of this vast amount of pro- 


if but subjecting it to all the horrors which 


I have known the Whigs of my State too long, 
I estimate their patriotism too highly, I have 
associated with them too intimately, to suppose 
it necessary for a moment to offer an argument 
to them in ‘ehalf of theircountry, They appre- 
d necessarily result from such aconsumma-|ciate, as fully as I could depict, the horrors of 
_ In addition to all this, whilst the aboli-idisunion; they will see the loss of national 
Mis on the one hand openly avow their op-|strength, the internal dissensions, the fatal check 
lion to the Constitution and their desire to|to civilization and freedom, the contempt of the 
loy a Government which imposes obligations] world which would, be the consequences of such 
diated by them, on the other hand many|a calamity. | The Whigs of Maryland, who have 
hern inen, goaded by the incessant attacks|followed the lead of such patriots as Clay and 
leir Northern fellow-citizens upon their feel-|Webster, “will never keep step to any other 
their property, and their constitutional/music than that of the Union.” 


| 
i 


Is, express the belief that the interests ofl, It therefore only remains to, inquire what 




















course shall be taken to rebuke sectional fanati-:more and Donelson will interpose to prevent. 
sism and preserve our country from the dangers fair exercise of our judgment on that side 
of its success. propose briefly to inquire whether there is a1 
You are aware that this Republican party,|thing to prevent our support of the Democrs 
which we all agree must be put down at all nominees, if after investigation we shall beli 
hazards, is opposed by two other party organi-| that our vote in their fayor would more certaii 
zations: the American, headed by Messrs, Fill-/secure the safety of our country. It can 
more and Donelson, and the Democratic, led on| have escaped your observation that the politi 
by Messrs. Buchanan and Breckinridge. You!principles upon which the Whig and Demoer 
will recollect that Mr. Fillmore, prior to his re-|ic parties have battled for thirty years, with ) 
cent visit to Europe, abandoned the Whig party Tied success, have been for the most part sett! 
and became a member of the former of these| by the fiat of the people, and that such as h: 
organizations, which boasted that it had risen|not been so definitely disposed of haye be 
upon the downfall of the Whig party, and whichjeither abandoned by the one or adopted by | 
proclaims that the corruptions of the Whig and) other of those parties; sq that now the rep 
emocratic parties constituted the necessity of sentatives of the people in the halls of State a 
its existence. You know that he and Andrew’ Federal legislation are found indiscriminately ¢ 
Jackson Donelson have been nominated by this|Vocating and opposing the same principles a 
party (not by the Whig party) for the Presiden-,measures., Not only is there no principle of j 
ey and Vice Presidency, and you will admit that litical antagoism which should prevent Whi 
the principles of proscription because of religions 4nd Demoorats acting together for the benefit 
epinions, and other repudiated tenets of this|their common country, but it is confidently su 
new party, are in direct antagonism with the/mitted that upon the only vital.question, tl 
principles of that good old Whig party to which|which now agitates and endangers the count 
we are still attached, and which has been aban-|the two parties fully accord. The Whig a 
doned by Mr. Fillmore. It is not my object in|Democratie platforms upon the slavery ques 
referring to these facts to deny to the American|in eighteen hundred and fifty-two were iden 
party, since the secession of its abolition adhe-|cal; and, there being no Whig nominees bef 
rents, a fair claim to nationality; nor to deny)the people, it might be suggested that consiste 
the patriotism and virtue of Mr. Fillmore, nor/cy would rather require than oppose the supp! 
his eminent qualification for the office of Chieflof the Democratic nominees by Whigs. 1 
Magistrate. But I do deduce from them thejcontrolling inguiry to the patriot now recu 
necessary conclusion that, as Whigs, we owe no!which of the two national organizations can 
party allegiance to Messrs. Fillmore and Donel-|/is vote be made most certainly successfnl? 
son, members and nominees of the Marérient} Every Maryland Whig will be bound by é 
party. { deduce the conclusion that, as Whigs, |ty tie of duty to vote as his judgement shall « 
we are not only at liberty. but that as patriots|cide this question, , 
we are bound, by every obligation fo our country| It may not be immaterial to observe that nei 
and posterity, to throw aside, on the one hand,!er of the national nominees will obtain throu 
the feelings of hostility which Mr. Fillmore’s out this broad land any votes which will not 
desertion of our party would be calculated to cast by national conservative citizens, and it 
engender, and, on the other hand, to forget for|to be regretted that in this crisis that vote sho 
the time our former battles with the Democratic| de divided between two national candidates wh 
party, and to ask ourselves but one question). tihe entire anti-national vote will be concentra 
which of the two national organizations offers the upon the sectional nominee. To judge of — 
best quaraniee of success in crushing out of exis-|telative,strength of the two national ore 
tence this new and monstrous sectional party, /tions it is unnecessary to trace minutely 
which threatens the life of your country? I do‘origin of the American party. It is sufficien 
not propose to examine the relative claims of.bring’ to_ your recollection that it was origint 
the two national parties or their nominees to our:composed, North and South, of the dissati: 
support. It is not, in my judgment, permissible, members of the two parties, and that in - 
in the present crisis to interpose our individual|North its original members were chiefly th 
differences of opinion upon minor questions. It) who opposed the conservative principle w 
is sufficient for us to know that the election of|the slavery question avowed in the platform) 
either national nominee would secure the Union ;|the two old parties, It must not escape y 
and the only question permitted by patriotism/recollection that upon the nomination of Me 
is, Whether our support of the one or the other|Fllmore and Donelson a large majority a 
would more certainly prove successful 2° ” Northern delegates seceded from the Conve 
But before I proceed to this inquiry, having/declared their intention not to support a 
shown that no political allegiance to Messrs Fill-nominees, and subsequently united in the mi 








































9 


sation of Mr, Fremont. his separation of the 


sectional from the national portion of the Ameri-| 


an party has occurred inevery Northern State 
in the Confederacy. I deduce from these facts 
the nationality of the supporters of Messrs Fill- 
more and Donelson, and I submit the inquiry 
for the honest decision of those to whom this 
paper is addressed, what non-slaveholding State 
can this national branch of the American party, 
thus shorn of the larger portion of its original 
strength, promise its nominees? Let the Whigs 
of Maryland ponder upon the view of this sub- 
ject I have endeavored to present to their con- 
sideration, and no one of them will ‘say that a 
single non-slaveholding State is certain for Fill- 
more and Donelson, Time, J think, will develop 
the fact that Mes:rs Fillmore and Donelson. will 
be left without an electoral ticket in most of the 
free States, and it is at any rate the deliberate 


‘conduct leading to such a result?) Suppose Mr; 
Fillmore to reach the House of Represensatives 
with the votes of ‘four or five States, (his utmost 
possible strength,) no man can.seriously contend 
that he would be elected President, and assured- 
ly few will be fourtd bold enough to assert that, 
under such circumstances, he ought to be. The 
only effect, then, of giving the electoral vote of 
any portion of the South to Mr. Fillmore would 
be to transfer the contest between Mr. Buchanan 
and Fremont from the hustings to the House of 
Representatives ; and the danger to our country, 
now sufficiently menacing, would, in that event, 
be appalling indeed. Who can contemplate the 
occurrence of such a contingency without feeling 
that he would be a traitor to his, country if he 
failed to exert every possible effort to avert so 
awful a calamity ? 

I deem it, then, to be my duty, 





‘as well as that 


sonviction of my judgment that they will notlof all who believe with me that the election of 


earry a single non-slayeholding State in the 
Onion. If J am right, or even approximate the 
truth in the view I have taken, it will necessari- 
ly follow that any conservative vote for the 
American nominee North wiil be equivalent to 
a vote for Mr. Fremont, as it will be a vote ta- 
ken from Mr. Buchanan, his only real competi- 
tor. 

“It is clear, then, that to the South alone can 
the friends of Messrs Fillmore and Donelson 
look for the probable chance of an eiectoral vote; 
and itis to the States of Maryland, Tennessee, 


' Kentucky and Missouri that they profess to look 


with the greatest hope of success. It is mani- 


fest that if this hope were realized,’ it might in- 
deed prevent the election of Messrs’ Buchanan 
| and Breckinridge by the people, but it would 


only throw the election of President into the 
Yes House of Representatives, composed as 
hat House now is, 


iFremont would be the death-knell of the Union, 
to unite in the support of Messrs Buchanan and 
Breckinridge; and I shall sustain their election 
to the best of: my ability. Whilst I. concede 
that there are certain principles hitherto profess- 
ed by the party which nominated them that 
cannot receive our support, yet on the great. is- 
sues of the constitutional rights of the South 
ithe platform on which they stand meets my cor- 
dial approval, and is in accordance with that) of 
the party which I now address, and to whose 
kind favor I owe the honor of holding the seat I 
now occupy, and which I shall cease to hold af- 
ter the 4th of March next by the. fiat of that 
party to which Mr. Fillmore has attached him- 
self, and which is now dominant in the Legisla- 
ture of my native State. 

Let Maryland Whigs remember that the po- 
litical battle now being fought is one of the 





Does not the election of this)deepest interest to them ; thatthe maintenance 


same House, after a contest of two monthis, of a{of the constitutional’ rights of the South *is the 
Black Republican Speaker, admonish us of the}issue tendered)to the American people by the 
danger of such an experiment? Who can doubt| Democratic party, and (as the Whigs: have no 


that our political fabric would be shaken to its 
very foundations by this election of President 


being thrown upon the present House of Repre- 


‘sentatives? On the other hand, is it not certain 


“beyond the contingency of .a doubt, that the vote 


of the States indicated for Mr. Buchanan, wher 


candidate) by that party alone; that upon. this. 
issue the Republican party have staked the Union 
and*in such a battle, upon such ‘an issue, they: 
must be true to those who are doing battle in 
our behalf. : It would be indeed sad if, in such 
a contest, the conservative streugth of the coun+ 


added to that of the other Southern States, would|try should not be united: it would beas strange 
secure his election and the consequent safety ofjas sad if;in such a contest, Southern meu should 
the Union? It is obvious that in this condition|not be found battling shoulder to shoulder for the 
of the canvas the only serious contest is that be-|maintenance of their own constitutional rights. 
tween Fremont and Buchanan; that the only| In thus accomplishing what I believe to bé a 
possible result that the most sanguine of the|duty, I shall be inexpressibly gratified if T shall 
friends of Fillmore and Donelson can hope tojfine myself sustained by the approval of my 
obtain is to carry the contest into the House’ of|fellow Whigs, who have refused to abandon 
Representatives. Who can conceive any thingjeither the party or the principles in support. of 
‘more fatal to the peace of the country, more in-|which we shall remain at perfect liberty to: re- 
‘sane in political action, than such~a course ‘ofjorganize as soon as our common. efforts shall have 





10 
sueceeded| in averting the perils that now threat-(as he thought, it,was, he would prefer it over 
en our beloved country. all others. He had, too, been an ardent admirer 
' THOMAS G. PRATT, |of Mr. Fillmore personally, and if he could re- 
gard him now as he formerly had, he wonld per- j 
haps préfer,him for the high office which he 
SPEECH OF HON JNO. W.CRISFIELD. | once filled, overall others. But he had changed. q 
— The painful conclusion had been forced upon” 
Mr. Onisric.p, after acknowledging the com-jhim that Mr.,Fillmore was not now what he’ 
pliment their presence and call implied, which,jhad been, He had become a member of a se- 
he said, was as unexpected as it was unmerited, jcret political organization, dangerous in its ten-_ 
and expressing his thanks, proceeded, in sub-|dency, destructive of ther freedom of political — 
stance to say: That they all knew his antece-jopinion, and at war with the»theory of man’s 
dents ; that it was well known he had always|capacity for self-goyernment—an organization — 
been a Whig, and under all circumstances, as|proscriptive in its character and intolerant of re- 
well in the darkest hours of defeat as in thejligious freedom, which enforced its jesuitical — 
hour of triumph, had stood under the banner of)policy by oaths not authorized by law and demor-. ] 
that party, proud todo battle in its support.|alizing in their tendency. He is, as we are in- 
He had done so, because the leading principles|formed, “a member in good standing of Council 
of that party and the doctrines: it’ proclaimed|No. 177,” in western New York. If this be so 
were just and patriotic, and had the unqualified|as few will doubt, it isa sad truth. Its discove- 
approval of his heart and judgemnt. These/ry crimsoned bis cheek with shame. In allow-~ 
principles, in his opinion, so just, so conservative,|ing himself to be placed in this position, Mr. — 
so consistent with the Constitution, had been so|Fillmore has been unjust to himself, and reckless 
long cherished, and so ardently loved, that hejof his own fame. But this is not all; he has | 
could no more shake them off or change them)unwhigged himself; he has become a member 
than he could change his epinions of religion orjof an organization which boasts of having arisen 
of morals, And he felt sure that no one expect-|upon the, ruins, and in spite of the opposition, 
ed him to do it. He reavowed them, and de-jof the Whig party, and proclaims, in its well 
clared that, as they had been the rulers of his/considered confession of faith, that it is nct re- 
political conduct in the past, so they would be}sponsible for the obnoxious errors and violated FE 
inthe future, whenever, from the state of partiesipledges of that party. He consorts with »An- Z 
and the condition of the country, those princi-!drew Jackson Donelson, the defamer of his Ad-_ 
ples should be in issue. But unfortunately that/ministration and the reviler of the Whig party, — 
was not now ; the Whig party was nota party/a Democrat of the stamp mest odoious to Whigs; 
to this fight; Whig principles are not in issue ;|and he now. demands of us, as Whigs, our sup-_ 


and Whig candidates were not, and would not 
be in the field. New parties had been formed, 
new issues had been joined, and upon these all 
Southern men could stand side. by side. The 
real contest. oow was between Southern rights 
and Northern fanaticism. In this state of. cir- 
cumstances, he felt it to be his solemn duty to 
lay aside ancient prejudices, and fraternize with 
that party now orgenized, and in the field, which 
-in his judgment, offers the best guarantee of its 
own success and of safety for our national, and 
domestic institutions; and in the performance. 
of this duty, after dispassionately examining the 
whole subject, he had come to the determination 
now for the first time, publicly announced, to 
give his support—his cordial and energetic sup- 
port—to the nominees of the Oincinnati Con- 
vention. 


Mr. C. said he would briefly assign, some of! 


the reasons which had brought him ‘to this de- 
termination, 

He'could not support Mr. Fillmore. He was 
a supporter of his administration; he thought 
it one of the purestand best which had trans- 


which he is nominated; and to old Whigs, he is 


port of this extraordinary and anomalous associ-— 
ation. At this moment he is carrying the ban-— 
ner of those who conspired for the destruction of — 
the Whig party. With these facts before him, he — 
could not recognize Mr. Fillmore asa Whig; he — 
had disrobed himself of that title; heis an alien — 
from the fold, and, had not a shadow of a claim, — 
based on old party associations, to the support 
of the few who still remain coustant to the an- 
cient faith, ar b | 
But if he were willing, in consideration of his 
services, to overlook these serious, objections to 
Mr, Fillmore, he could not support him without. 
also supporting Mr. Donelson. e twoarein- 
dissolubly blended ; and he would not vote for 
Mr. Donelson. He had not a single qualifica- 
tion to recommend him, for the high place for 












perhaps the most objectionable man who could 
be named;, For his own part, he was. not wil- 
ling to vote for any man for Vice President 
whom he would be unwilling to trust as Presi- 
dent. He had. not forgotten the blasted fruits 





pired in his time; and if it could be restored, 


of the Whig triumph of 1840. Who ay be 
willing to see Mr. Donelson President ? Noone, 





ii! 


he would Ventiire to say; and yet, if tlic Fill- 
more ticket prevails, he may, and probably 


will, be.” Twice have the Whigs carried the} 


Presidential election, and on both occasions, 

: ih Ja, qv tag , . bry 
scarcely had the shout of triumph ceased to re- 

-echy before they were called upon to mourn 'the 
death of their President.’ What right have we 


| 
7 
| 


to caleulate upon exemption from a like calam-' 


ity in the next Presidential term ? 
‘antee haye we that Mr. Fillmore will not also be 
taken? and if he should be, who is not appalled 
at the idea of the duties of that high station de- 
volving on Mr. Donelson ? Who does not trem-! 
ble at the thought of entrusting him with the 
‘whole power of this Government ; of placing in 
‘his hands its army and its‘navy; of committing 
to his management its foreign policy; and of| 
eaving to hi§ charge the settlement of the peril-! 
‘ous questions of Gomestic policy which at this 
‘moment are rudely agitating the Union of tiaese 
‘States, and threatening dissolution? “He could: 
‘not vote for Mr. Donelson ; and if ‘any ‘one 
‘should twit him for supportiti¢ Mr; Buchanan 
becatise he is a Democrat, Mr. C. would just re- 
‘mind him that Mr. Donelson, also, is a Demo- 
erat, with the ‘stain of Know-nothingism and in- 
‘capacity superadded. 

) “But if he waived these considerations, there 
‘were other reasons, still’ more conclusive, which 
obliged him at this crisis to give his support to 
“Mr. Buchanan. The contest in which we are 
‘engaged, unhappily, is a contest between ‘the 
‘North ‘and the South—between abolitionism 
and free-scilism on the one side, and the preser- 
‘vation of ‘southern rights and the Union on the 
‘other. This was the real issue, and he might 
isay the only issue now to be decided—and one 
of more overwhelming’ importance was never 
presented for decision td the American people. 
On the one’side we find the Republicans, led on 
y Mr. Fremost, sustaining the ultra! northern 
lew. ‘The objects of this party are'unmistaka- 
ble; they are humiliating to the South, and de- 
structive of her constitutional rights and material 
interests. The Republicans deny to her her just 
share of political power; negative those consti- 
ictal guarantees which wete intended for pro- 
le tered the Union. And is there no danger that 
ey may triumph? Already have they ob- 
tained control of nearly every State legislature 
north of Mason and Dixon’s line ; they have a 
Majority in the’ House of Representatives, which 
slects the President in case of the failure of the 
eople to elect; and'to preside over the deliber- 
ations of that body, they have elected Mr. Bahks, 
who boldly avows, that sooner than’ abolition 
hnd free-soil measures should fail, he would “let 
the Union slide.” | The people of the Free States, 











































What gua-| 


ection, and without whicli she would never have! 


icesses, and headless of constitutional restraints 
jand’ of consequences, are madly rushing into the 
‘Republican ranks with a unanimity hitherto 
without example; and it'may well be feared 
that even the united energies of all southern men 
and the conservatives of every section may be 
too feeble to resist the overwhelming power. 
The Union trembles under the blows of this sec- 
itional Strife; God grant that the fearful catas-’ 
‘trophe of its dissolution may be averted! ‘he 
election of Fremont would be its déath-knell. 
If his supporters are strong enough to elect him, 
they are also strong enough to’ consuminate 
their designs of sectional aggrandizement and 
southern humiliation; and in spite of the Gon- 
stitution, they will assume the power of Con- 
gress to legislate our Slavery in the’ Territories 
of the United States; they will exclude the 
South from its just rights in the national domain, 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, re- 
peal the fugitive slave bill and refuse to’ admit 
new States into the Union unless they repudiate 
slavery. That these measures would follow the 
election of Fremont he had no doubt ; and when 
they did, the Union would, and ought to be, 
dissolved. These measures, and each of them, 
negative important provisions of the Constitu- ” 
tion inserted for the security of the South, and 
if persisted in are jnst grounds of separation. 
Fellow-citizens, do you appreciate the dangers 
which encompass you? He feared we were on 
the verge of dissolution. Gloom and apprehen- 
sion shroud’ the future; our very existence as a 
nation—as one united people—in all probability 
depends upon the result of this election.’ Our 
institutions are assailed in their most vulnerable 
part. The torch of the incendiarry is blazing; 
the citadel of the Union is besieged’; and this is 
no time for the garrison to be wasting the time 
and strength, which should be given to the com- 
{mon enemy, in the indulgence of old antipathies 
and vain disputes ; but regardless of the'past, and 
with patriotic devotion, sacrificing, on’ the alter 
of our common country our ancient prejudices 
and preferences, we sh ould rally under the stan- 
dard of that‘ leader who gives thé best assurance 
of his ability to preserve the common safety, 
If we concede Mr. Fillmore’s entire nationality, 
and that, if elected; his energies’ would’ be de- 
voted in’ good faith to preserve the Union, and 
quell all sectional ‘discord, what assurance have 
we that he can be elected? Does any one believe 
that he can be?’ He who'thinks he can be is 
blind to the signs of’the times. Mr. ©. knew 
very well that in certain quarters studied efforts 
had been made to produce the impression that 
his election was certain, and it is quite possible 
that there are those Whose vision ‘does not reach 
beyond the narrow horizon of Somerset, or even 





purhing with fabaticism, inflated’ by these sue- 





of the State of Maryland, who’ may think so: 


but the man who comprehends within his view 
the whole country,.and the present state of par- 
ties, who has observed for the last half-year the 
varied and manifold indications of popular sen- 
timent, andis familiar with the spirit of the Ameri- 
can press, and can think there is the remotest 
probabitity of the election of Mr, Fillmore by, the 
people, has become insensible to evidence. Where 
is he to get the votes? He is the nominee of the 


12 


and West are either Republican or Dernocratic 5 
and no reasonable ground exists justifying the | 
belief that he can get a single electoral vote in_ 
the inte States, unless it be in California, of 
which he did not pretend to speak. These States _ 
will vote for Buchanan or Fremont, Mr, C._ 
greatly feared a raayppity of them would go for 
the latter, Inthe South Mr. Fillmore may, do | 
better. THis friends last year carried Delaware, 





American party, which, if it was even a national 
party, has long since ceased to be so by the de- 
fection of its own members. A large portion of 
the members from the. free States of the conven- 


Maryland and Kentucky; if these be accorded 
to him now, they will not ;elect him. Can he | 
got any more? Few, if any, think heean; but 


tion which nominated him at that time seceded, 
and went over to the Republicans; and from that 
time to this the work of secession has been going 


on, until now it may, be truthfully affirmed that 


the American party, distinct from, and uncon- 


nected with the Republicans, has ceased to exist 


in those States. True, individual members re- 
main firm; but, as a party, capable anywhere in 
those States, unless it be in the city of New 
York, of effecting anything, it does not exist.— 
Nor cap he expect any important aid in those 
States from other parties. The Whig party 
there, for the most part, lost itself in American- 
ism, and as part of the American party has goue 
over to the Republicans. Except Choate and 
Winthrop, and probably Everett, of Massachu- 
setts, he could not name a Whig of New Eng- 
Jaud, of national reputation, who was not now a 
Republican. Even the most active and able 
supporters of Mr. Fillmore’s administration have 
enlisted in the Republican ranks. 
New Jersey, is the Republican candidat for Vice 
President; Collamer, of Vermont, is the chosen 
adyocate of Republicanism in the United States 
Senate, and Corwin, of Ohio, his Secretary of the 
Treasury, is stumping Indiana for Fremont; and 
the same, may be said of many others of like 
stamp. 


In the free States nearly every Whig of na- 
tional reputation may now be found among the 


Republicans. , The legislatures of those States 
are either Republican or Demoeratic—not. I'ill- 
more Americans; in the House of Representa- 
tives there are scarcely enough members from 
the free States who favor Mr. Fillmore’s election 
to fill the cabinet appointments, even if they were 
of the right material; and if there is one mem 

ber from those States in, the Senate of the United 
States who favors his election, Mr. C could not 
name him. Of the anti-democratic press of those 
States the same may be said. Out of 91 anti 
democratic journals from the free States which 
exchange with the New York Herald, 78,,.as we 
learn from that paper, are for Fremont, and. 11 
for Fillmore and 2,,for Buchanen. .Shut their 
eyes, as the friends of Mr., Fillmore may, the 
fact is nevertheless true thatthe whole North 


Dayton, of 


suppose he gets Tennessee, North Carolina, and , 
Louisiana—and his most sanguine friends claim | 
no more in the South—still he is greatly in the. 
minority. Then, he cannot be elected by the, 
popular vote; and every yote thrown for him,. 
With that view, isa vote thrown away. But, 
votes for him may have a different and very , 
mischievous effect. If he carries the States re- i 
ferred to, or even a considerable portion of them, 
no election probably will be effected by the peo-_ 
pe, and the. election will be referred to the 
ouse of Representatives. Will that benefit. 
him? ao : 
Certainly not. His.strength in that House is 
the Fuller squad; which after a two months’ . 
struggle could not get a Speaker. But ia a 
presidential election, when, the vote is cast by, 
States, it would have even less effective strength, , 
for they are in the majority in three States only,, 
\(Deleware, Maryland, and Kentucky,) which , 
would give him three votes’only. ‘Then it is, 
equally certain that he cannot be elected by the , 
House. If it goes to the House, Fremont will, 
be elected, or there will be, no election. The. 
Repubiicans were strong enough to elect Banks 
Speaker ; and is there any reasonable ground 
to doubt their ability to elect Fremont President? 
They have, it, is feared, already fourteen States,’ 
and it requires but sixteen to elect. Starting | 
with this immense odds in his favor, and with 
the patronage of the government at his disposal, 
in the event of success, his friends will haye no_ 
difficulty in procuring the additional votes re- 
quired. He considered, then, all votes given. for 
Fillmore for the purpose of defeating the elec> 
tion by the people, and of throwing it into the. 
House, as votes given to promote Fremont’ 
election; and that those who, under existing 
circumstances,..and with, such an object, call 
their votes, are unfriendly to the South, and re- 
sponsible for all the consequences which may , 
follow. 
If the friends of Mr, Fillmo 


: 





naa 
bly calculate on his election, or if, the contes' 
was between him and Buchanan, he wou!d hay 
nothing to say. He should vote in silence ac 
cording to his convictions. of propriety, feeling 
assured that, whether the one or, the other suc: 


re could reaso 










: 


ceeded, the substantial interests of the country— 
above all, the safety of the Union—would be, 
preserved. But the contest is not between/ 
them; and his being in the field, at least in the 
Southern States, can be productive of mischief; 
only. While the Freesdil interests'are all com- 
bined and combining, the South presents a 
divided front; defeat and humiliation are the 
certain consequences of these tactics, if *perse- 
‘vered in. he real contest’ is between Mr. 
‘Buchanan and Mr. Fremont; one or the other 
‘of these must succeed’; and, ay between them, 
‘he held it to be the duty of every Union-loving 
“*man—6of every’man who cherished the honor of 
‘the South; and desired :her to be preserved in the 
‘enjoyment'of her constitutional: rights and au-: 
‘thority—to give the former a'cheerful and unre-! 
served support. For one, he-intended to do it.! 
The ground Mr. Buchanan occupied on this 
gréat question was the true, constitutional, and 
only safe ground; it corresponded with Mr. C.’s 
-long-cherished and oft-repeated opinions; and 
he should be false to those opinions if he hesi- 
tated, at this time, in giving him and them his 
support. He thought that the duty of all, 
Southern ‘men especially. He regretted . that 
‘many of those with whom he had long acted, 





his cherished and familiar’ friends, thought dif-; 


ferently ; he regretted not to see’ them around 
‘him: to-night, and hear’ their famaliar voices 
cheering him onward—the separation pained 
‘him. He conceded to them an equal degree of 
‘intelligence and patriotism which he claimed for 
himself; and could only regret that they would 
‘not think with him. He believed he was right, 
he knew he was sincere, and he should act up to 
his: duty, painful though it be. Possibly he 
‘might be’ denounced ; better men had beem de- 
‘nounced, and he knew of no reason why he 
‘ought to expect exemption; but he should not 
‘hesitate or falter ;~he should act up to his prin- 
‘eiples, and according to his sense of duty, in the 
face of all denunciation. He was not afraid to 
do his duty: He would leave consequences to 
“take care of themselves. 
Mr. Crisfield, after having told an anecdote 
‘illustrative of his own position, again tendered 
‘his thanks to the audience, bid them good night, 
‘and retired. 







or 


| SPEECH OF HON, ISAAC D. JONES. 





' Mr, Jones said he would no longer resist the 
‘calls of his fellow citizens. He had to this mo- 
‘ment declined to speak. on this occasion; had 
‘gone home with no intention to be here to night, 
and had returned to the village to gratify the 
wishes of the ladies of his family to enjoy the 
masie of the band. He arrived in time to hear 


<1 


the’ concludirg portion of his ‘friend Orisfield’s 
speech, but hoped himself, to pass unobserved. 
Not that he had: any reluctance to avow his 
opinions regarding the ‘present crisis, for they 
were already well known in this) community, 
but he desired not to participate, at this time, 
in the excitement of political diseussion.. He 
had all his life, been an attentive observer of the 
politics of the country. He had witnessed and 
participated in the strife of parties ; had seen 
with deep concern, gloomy clouds threatening 
disaster and destruction to the country’s fairest 
prospects, -but- under the guiding hand of a 
merciful Providence, they had passed harmless- 
ly by. But never before had: he looked upon 
the political condition of the country with ‘so 
much solicitude ‘and»anxiety.. ‘Never before 
were such issues presented in ‘a Presidential 
election for the People’s decision. He had 
watched the progress of events with intense in- 
terest. He had pondered carefully the pros and 
cons on all sides of the absorbing questions of 
the day. He believed he had weighed. them 
with impartial judgment, certainly with personal 
disinterestedness, and with entire candor. He be- 
louged to none of the existing parties: He was 
but-an humble fragment of what was onee the 
glorious: old Whig partys. The practical ques- 
\tions heretofore in issue between the Whig and 
Democratic parties have been. adjusted and pass~ 
ed into history.. The Whig party has no longer 
an existence. ' Its vitality seems to have passed 
away with its great leaders, Clay and Webster. 
When, where, why; and by whom, it was 
“ruined,” deserted, betrayed; —its name, its 
principles, its ‘organization. abandoned—who 
can tell? . These incidents: of its history are hid- 
den among the mysteries of secret, midnight, 
oath-bound Know-Nothing Councils. 

A new party has arisen, sprung upias it were, 
in a night, without ‘‘a local habitation or a 
name ”—meeting nowhere, composed of no- 
body, and knowing nothing. It was first dis- 
covered by the public, in the ballot-box, to the 
dismay of the Democracy, and the delight of 
the Whigs who’ were glad to see their ancient 
foe defeated, no matter by whom. It had its 
origin; it is said in the North; in the land of 
Millerism,Mesmerism, Mormenism; Spiritualism, 
Abolitionism. In June 1855, emboldened by 
its success, it emerged into public view, and or- 
ganized as a political party, calling itself Ameri- 
can. Its purposes and objects have since been 
somewhat understood. | Its councils have exhi- 
bited a singular want of unanimity and har- 
mony in their party action. ' In June 1855, they 
planted themselves upon their 12th Section as a 
National party, acquiescing in existing laws as 
a final settlement of the Slavery: question.. In 
February, 1856, the American National Council 











* 


2114 


abandoned.the -12th Section, Southern, mem-|Southern rights: 4.0 4j)4.00 94) | 
bers protest- and secede, Ina day or two the| With these well-known, facts staring us in th 
scene changes—a compromise is patched up‘in|face—with the Republican and American par 
secret—Southern members and Northern mem-|ties in the North rallying upon Fremont,, .witl 
bers re-appear in American National Convention,|the avowed, purpose of a relentless war.upor 
and nominate Fillmore and Donelson. North-|Sonthern rights, what. did) we see and hear,?— 
ern membersagain protest, secede, and denounce) Mr. Joncs saidy ageustomed as he was, to th 
Fillmore and Donelson. lus perversions of partizans and.mewspapers, be wa 
But other startling developments had preced-|amazed at, the; hardihood. of assertion .in thos 
ed these doings of February. It was boasted| who were denouncing the| Democratic party as.re 
that this National American party had elected |sponsible for the sectivnal strife, and the slayer 
a large majority of members of. the houselagitation, which now, more than,eyer, threate: 
of Representatives. Congress met. in Decem-|the stability of our Union and Constitution. A 
ber, 1855, when it was found that these Na-ja Whig, who in former days, had been. thei 
tional Americans were rent into fragments ; the|frank. and. steadfast opponent, he. would: asser 
small Southern band divided among themselves;|that impartial history will, pronounce this impu 
whilethe great Northern American party, hav-|tation an, wafounded,slander -upon.the Demo 
ing a majority of the whole House, combined injcratic party. ,|He exceedingly, vegretted to se 
solid, uncompromising phalanx, upon a.red-hot|that so eminent a; statesman,.and so excellent 
Abolitionist . for Speaker... The | Democrats|man as Mr., Fillmore, /should,..in a, moment 
united upon a North-Western National Demo-({forgetfullness and excitement, have given counte 
crat, and for some two months closely aad firm-|nance tothis imputation in his speech at Albany 
ly maintained their position with Spartan hero-|He then spoke of the responsibility of those wh 
ism. At length, patriotism prevailed jover|‘‘re-opened the Slavery agitation.” ,At what pe 
Southern Americans and National Democrats,|riod, said .Mr. Jones, since the formation, ot th 





aad foregoing party preferences, they united im 
opposition to the factious Abolitionists ;who 
sought at all hazards,, to place Banks in the 
Speaker’s chair. Who does not know the re- 
sult?,, Who does not: remember the shame and 
coufusion, and unortification,. with which our 
Know-Nothing: friends.hung their heads when 
it way announced that Banks was Speaker ?— 
Who does not remember the bitter curses’ wpon 
Davis, of Maryland, and ‘Cullen, of Delaware, 
for throwing: away'their» votes, and indirectly 
aiding in the result ? Having triumphed, iv 
the election of Speaker, and in breaking down 
the 12th Section’ at Philadelphia, it could. scarce~ 
ly be: expected that the, Northern Americans 
would desert their Republican: allies, and trust 
to any hope of. co-operation with ‘Southern 
Americans, who had, in the election of Speaker, 
openly preferred alliance with the Democrats. 
The party who hadvyelected Banks, ‘Speaker, 
called itself Republican. It) had, by an exclu- 
sively sectional’ vote, elected a most obnoxious 
Abolition Speaker. ‘They now resolved to strike 
for the Presidency—and they have nominated 
Fremont as their candidate. The Anrti-Fillmore 
Amniericans met and nominated | Speaker Banks 
for President. | He: declined, and: they) have 
‘united with the Black Republicans upon Fre- 
mont. ‘The Democrats havé nominated Mr. 
Buchanan, 'a distinguished statesman, of large 
experience ini public affairs, of unsullied  per-: 


» sonal character, and though a citizen of a free 


State, he has, all his life, amidst the storms of 
Abolitionism, stood with heroic firmness upon 


nion, I O @: 
Wess Slave law, every wherein the North 


N. E. Anti-Slavery Society, about,1831, has th 
question been .closed,/or has,its,agitation ceased 
r. Fillmone’s advogates say that, the, Compr. 
mise rmcasures of 1850 restored peace,aud quic 
to the country upon: this; question, Are, the 
oblivious of facts)so recent, in, the histary of th 
country? Do they not know. that it required a 
the cormbined influence, talents and euergy of a 
the National ‘Whigs ‘and, Demoerats, in hot 
Houses of Congress, to pass the Compromi: 
measures? -‘That,,Clay, and, Cass,, Webster an 
Douglas, and /other/ Whigs and | Demoerats, 1m 
ted to save the country in, that, terrible crisi 
Phat Mr. Clay’s bill for. the admission’ of Califor 
nia, adjusting the bonndary.of Texas, and orgart 
izing the Territories. of New, Mexico and Utal 
was defeated; and’ that, when separate bilis fc 
these objects had) been passed, and the Fugitiy 
Slave bill had -passed,/the powerful and. talente 
opposition, so far from aequiescing in those mea 
sures, as a final. settlement, openly appealed t 
the:anti-slavery feelings of the North and Wes 
and avowed their determination to “agitate” fc 
the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law, and) to,ex 
clude slavery. from all the Territories of th 
Yas not the attempt to execute th 

Te 
sisted even unto blood, by anti-slavery mobs 
If peace and (quiet were restored, and those mei 
sures acquiesced in by the country, why wasnt 
Mr. Fillmore or Mr.;Webster nominated for 
Presidency in 1852)? Such. was the excite 
against Mr. Fillmore for signing the F 
Slave bill, that all) his own. great talents: 










the guarantecs of the Constitution, in defence of 





faithful efforts to serve his whole country, ; 
‘ ‘ 





lb 


“Mr. Clay’sendorsment and’ influence to aid him,} 


were unavailing in the Whig convention, Gen: 
4 Scott was nominated under the influence of the 
free soil, anti-slavery ‘excitement among North- 
~ ern Whigs. The conservative spirit of the coun- 
try was aroused, the Whig candidate was dis- 
“trusted, and the Democratic party achieved an 

overwhelming triumph.’ This,'so far from quiet- 
- ing the angry spirit of Anti-Slavery, but in- 
creased its rage. Who does not remember the 
~ terrible effects of an armed mob in’ the city of 
~ Boston to prevent the execution of the Fugitive 
~ Slave law upon the negro Burns, and the politi- 
_ cal revolutions that followed, sweeping the Dem- 
' ocratic party from power in'the northern States ? 
“It is true, the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
"pill added fuel to the flame, but did not kindle 
“it. It was used by the agitators in the North to 
- increase the excitement, which had been con- 
 stantly growing since the defeat of the Wilmot 
proviso, and the passage of the Fugitive Slave 
| law. 
' But it is said the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
_ promise line brought the present troubles on the 
country. Mr. Jongs ‘went on to show that, in 
1850, when it was proposed to extend this line 
' West, so as to make it the boundary of Utah, 
’ that Seward, Hale, and the Free 'soil party in 
Congress, denounced the line; would not, even 
by implication, admit that it had any binding 
- effect ; avowed that it should not’stand, but that 
“slavery should be forever excluded from all the 
‘Territories, South as well as North ‘of that line, 
“That when Congress came to organize Territorial 
"governments for Kansas and Nebraska, the ques- 
tion was, whether the National Whigs and Dem- 

ocrats, who believed that there was no constitu- 
tional obligation to abide‘ by thaf line, (which 
was but the application of the Wilmot Proviso 
‘to all the territory North of 36°80’) should! 
“stand quietly by and see Kansas settled exclu- 
sively by Free Soilers, and add another to ‘the 
free States, to be followed by Nebraska as a free 
State, by which time the power to protect them- 
selves and their rights under the constitution 
| would forever have been taken away from the 
slave States; or whether, whilst they had the 
power, they should assert their constitutional 
rights to an equal share of the public domain, 
leaving the question of slavery, as a domestic in- 
stitution, to be settled by the people of the Ter- 
ritory, when they came to form a State constitu- 
tion. In adopting the latter alternative, they 
followed the example of the Congress of 1850, in 
the Utrh and New Mexico Territorial bills, and 
erected the Territores of Kansas and Nebraska, 
without the Wilmot Proviso. This, like the Fu- 
gitive Slave law, and the defeat of the 
Wilmot Proviso in 1850, has been made the oc- 
casion of increased rage and fury among the 



















. 


Free Soilers, and afforded’a convenient oppor- 
tunity for Northern politicians, who thought 
they saw coming triumph’ 'for Free Soilism, to 
join its ranks. But-can Southern Whigs and 
men in ‘the Nerth, claiming to be friends of the 
South, join inthis Free Soil crusade against the 
Democratic party ? ; 
Mr. Jones then proceeded to express his opin- 
ions upon the Presidential. contest:—that Fre- 
mont was the candidate of this Free Soil party 
in the nou-slave holding States, and that to de- 
feat hin’ might require the united efforts of all 
National men, Whigs, Democrats and Ameri- 
cans.'! That frora the distracted state of Mr. 
Fillmore’s party in the Northern States, and the 
large secession from it to Fremont’s support, it 
was questionable whether Mr. Fillmore could so 
divide the vote in any Northern State as to de- 
feat the Free Soil electors in such State. That 
if Mr. Filimore’was supported in the North by 
a portion of the conservative National men, to 
that extent, he would divide the vote that ought 
to be united upon one candidate against the Ab- 
olitionists and Free Soilers. ‘That Mr. Buchan- 
an is supported by a party, which, in a conven- 
tion of six hundred delegates from every State 
in the Union, unanimously planted themselves 
upon the Constitutional guarenties of Southern 
rights.’ They have risked their existence as a 
political partyin defence of our property, our 
rights, the (Constitution and the Union. That 
it was amazing to him, with this prospect before 
us, that Southern Whigs, or any Southern man, 
should hazard the loss of a slave State to Mr. 
Buchanan by voting for Mr. Fillmore. That 
this was no time to indulge personal preferences, 
or party animosity, or to revive the feuds: of 
other days. “That the question is’ one of self- 
preservation against all the probable horrors of 
disunion, anarchy, and civil war—to end, God 
knows where! That’ he had a high personal 
regard for Mr. Fillmore, and admitting, that in 
talents, statesmanship, and patriotism, andyeven 
upon the question of Southern rights, he may 
be all his most ardent admirers claim for him, 
Mr. Buchanan, is at least, his equai in these re- 
spects, and is sustained by a party which is in 
the majority in nearly all if uot all the slave 
States. Shall Southern men, in such a crisis, 
seek to distract and defeat the only party in the 
country which, in his judgment, affords the’ 
slightest hope or prospect of defeat to this dan- 
gerous, sectional F'ree Soil party of the North? 
But it was said Mr. Fillmore had denounced 
the Sectional Free Soil party in his speech at 
Albany, and had proclaimed that if it should 
elect its candidate to the Presidency, the South 
would not, and ought not tosubmit. Let no 
man be deluded by such a threat. If Fremont 
shall be elected President according to the forms 


16 


of the Constitution, ‘either by. obtaining the 
united vote of the-free States, in the Electoral 
Colleges, or by a majority of the States, in the 
House of Representatives, if there is no election 
by the people—he willbe entitled to take the 
Presidential office ; to grasp’ the sword of the 
army, and the flag of the navy; and to exercise 
all the great powers vested by law in that high 
office. Overt acts of armed resistance to his 
lawful authority, if unsuccessful would be 
treason. Successful resistance, would be revolu- 
tion, disunion, and all the horrors of anarchy. 


Mr. Jones then adverted to the, theory of 


those Whigs and Americans who proposed to 
vote for Mr. Fillmore in the slave States, in the 
hope, that: by giving him the vote of two or 
three slave: States, the election may be carried 
into the House of Representatives, where, hav- 
ing four States in his favor, and holding thus 


the balance of power, they would }compel the 


Democrats or Republicans, to, take Fillmore, or 
have no election. Did gentlemen forget that 
the same House of Representatives that elected 
Banks Speaker, will have the election of Presi- 
dent? » Are they-sure that Fremont, with four- 
teen States, may not find means to secure two 
more? Does any dream that the Free Soilers 
in Congress, will, in any event, vote for Mr, 
Fillmore, or for Mr, Buchanan ?, They will ad- 
here to Mr. Fremont as they did to Banks—and 
Southern men may find, as they found in the 
election of Speaker. that the attempted union 
of Southern Americans and Democrats in Con- 
gress, may come too late to defeat the Free Soil 


party. 


holders. 


Mr, Jones said, if the election should go to 
the House of Representatives, the probability 
was, there would be no election by the House. 





PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE STANDARD, WASHINGTON, D. 0. 


sre 


Let them remember, that in a possibie 
contingency, Speaker Banks, even. before ‘the 
Presidential election, may become President, 
comamander-in-chief of the army and navy, and 
surrounded with an army of Free Soil office 


j 


He considered it as certain as any fy politi- 
cal event could be, that John C. J rack idg 
would be elected Vice-President, and in cas 
no election by the Tigo before the A! 
March next, Breckinridge, by the Constitutio 
will, become President., He was a noble son of 
Kentucky, a man of high order of intellect, a 
statesman of eminent ability, : 
he would make a safe and able Pr 
Jones said he would support Buchanai 
Breckinridge upon the. platform of their sen 
ments, as contained in their letters of accept- 
ance, and upon the practical and real issues in- 
volved in this contest, which he conceived to be 
defence of Southern rights against the purposes 
of the Free Soilers, and defence of the rights o! 
conscience in religious belief, and of the Con- 
stitutional rights of our naturalized citizens 
against the-purposes of the American party. 
Proseription of any, class, of our, American 
citizens, on account of their religious creed, o1 
place of birth, is illegal and unjnst, and at wat 
with the avowed doctrines and policy of Mary- 
land Whigs for all past time, and especially for 
the last sixteen years, He remained firm by the 
doctrines of the Whig Central gid of 
1840, re-affirmed by a convention of Whigs ir 
Baltimore in April, 1856. 0 | ~ 
In this hour of trial, in her exposed conditior 
as a frontier slave State, bounded by Mason anc 
and Dixon’s line, Maryland, needs the unitec 
aid of all her citizens, Protestant, Roman Catho 
lic and naturalized, to protect her property, he 
peace, and all that she holds most sacred ant 
dear—the Constitution and the Union! Le 
her be warned by the past, and irust nothing t 
the House of Representatives. Let her citizen 
see to it, that by uniting at the ballot-box wit! 
her Southern sisters, and with the Nationa 
Democrats and Whigs, and conservative men. ¢ 
the North and the West, they elect Buchana) 
and Breckinridge by the voice of > ad 











a 


Mie 


Hi) 2 SE 


Ya 
on 
Fe fine 
f 4 





Date Due 
SEP2 "SR 











Form 335—40M—6-39—S 








